# C_2017063EN.01002001.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/20

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 ANKO v European Commission

ANKO

European Commission

(Case C-6/17 P)

(2017/C 063/28)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance.

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 makes findings of law which are contrary to principles of EU law and challenges those findings by means of this appeal.

The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

| i. | First
  , with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment. |
| --- | --- |

i.

First
  , with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment.

First

an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment

| ii. | Second
  , on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

Second
  , on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof.

Second

an error in law

Within that framework, the grounds of appeal are the following:

| I. | In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:






  1) | First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

I.

In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:

1)

First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons.

| 2) | Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning.

| II. | With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:






  3) | Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- | --- |

II.

With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:

3)

Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.

| 4) | Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim.

---