# C_2019182EN.01002602.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/26

---

Appeal brought on 31 March 2019 by Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2019 in Case T-166/17, EKETA v European Commission

(Case C-273/19 P)

(2019/C 182/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (represented by: V. Christianos and K. Karagounis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

| 1. | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 in Case Τ-166/17 (1), to the extent of points 2 and 3 of the operative part and the paragraphs of that judgment relating thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 in Case Τ-166/17 (1), to the extent of points 2 and 3 of the operative part and the paragraphs of that judgment relating thereto;

| 2. | Refer the case back to the General Court for a further ruling; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refer the case back to the General Court for a further ruling;

| 3. | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant does not challenge point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal, and the related paragraphs 142-143, 145, 171, 173, 187-189 and 191-193 of the judgment under appeal are also not challenged.

The appellant claims that points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal and the paragraphs relating to them should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | First ground of appeal: The General Court failed to give judgment in accordance with the law and did not assess all the evidence produced by ΕΚΕΤΑ. The General Court also distorted the facts, as they emerged from that evidence, erred in law as to the allocation of the burden of proof and was in breach of the obligation to state reasons for its decision (paragraph 5 et seq.). |
| --- | --- |

—

First ground of appeal: The General Court failed to give judgment in accordance with the law and did not assess all the evidence produced by ΕΚΕΤΑ. The General Court also distorted the facts, as they emerged from that evidence, erred in law as to the allocation of the burden of proof and was in breach of the obligation to state reasons for its decision (paragraph 5 et seq.).

| — | Second ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law, in that it misinterpreted the issue of whether there was a risk of conflict of interest (paragraph 78 et seq.). |
| --- | --- |

—

Second ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law, in that it misinterpreted the issue of whether there was a risk of conflict of interest (paragraph 78 et seq.).

| — | Third ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law, in that it misinterpreted in this case the obligation of the Commission to carry out its audit in accordance with the International Standards on Auditing (paragraph 94 et seq.). |
| --- | --- |

—

Third ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law, in that it misinterpreted in this case the obligation of the Commission to carry out its audit in accordance with the International Standards on Auditing (paragraph 94 et seq.).

| — | Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the principle of proportionality, which it disregarded (paragraph 103 et seq.). |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the principle of proportionality, which it disregarded (paragraph 103 et seq.).

---

(1)  ECLI:EU:T:2019:26.

---