# C_2020019EN.01003501.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/35

---

Appeal brought on 20 November 2019 by Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2019 in Case T-417/16: Achemos Grupė and Achema AB v Commission

(Case C-847/19 P)

(2020/C 19/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB (represented by: R. Martens, avocat, V. Ostrovskis, advokatas)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Lithuania, Klaipėdos Nafta AB

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court, |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court,

| — | or, in the alternative, rule itself on the action at first instance and annul, in its entirety, the contested decision (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

or, in the alternative, rule itself on the action at first instance and annul, in its entirety, the contested decision (1);

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

—

order the European Commission to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of Article 263 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 256(1) TFEU and of the duty to state reasons, because the General Court committed an error of law by omitting to appraise the information on which the Commission relied in order to adopt its decision, whereas an adequate review of the legality of the Commission’s decision by the General Court implies a review whether the information relied on by the Commission is factually accurate, reliable and consistent. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 263 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 256(1) TFEU and of the duty to state reasons, because the General Court committed an error of law by omitting to appraise the information on which the Commission relied in order to adopt its decision, whereas an adequate review of the legality of the Commission’s decision by the General Court implies a review whether the information relied on by the Commission is factually accurate, reliable and consistent.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right of sound administration and Article 12 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (2) read in conjunction with Article 5 of that regulation, because the General Court committed an error of law by accusing the appellants of not informing the Commission during the Commission’s preliminary examination, whereas by virtue of the duty to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and the right of sound administration it is the Commission that has the duty to ensure that it has at its disposal the most complete and reliable information possible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right of sound administration and Article 12 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (2) read in conjunction with Article 5 of that regulation, because the General Court committed an error of law by accusing the appellants of not informing the Commission during the Commission’s preliminary examination, whereas by virtue of the duty to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and the right of sound administration it is the Commission that has the duty to ensure that it has at its disposal the most complete and reliable information possible.

| 3. | Third plea in law: infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the duty to state reasons, because the General Court did not clearly and unequivocally state why the LNG project could be exempted from Article 14 of Directive 2004/18/EC (3) and be directly awarded to Klaipėdos Nafta, whereas in conformity with its duty to state reasons the General Court should disclose its reasoning in such a way as to enable the appellants to ascertain the reasons for the decision taken. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the duty to state reasons, because the General Court did not clearly and unequivocally state why the LNG project could be exempted from Article 14 of Directive 2004/18/EC (3) and be directly awarded to Klaipėdos Nafta, whereas in conformity with its duty to state reasons the General Court should disclose its reasoning in such a way as to enable the appellants to ascertain the reasons for the decision taken.

---

(1)  Commission Decision C(2013) 7884 final of 20 November 2013, whereby State aid SA.36740 (2013/NN) granted by Lithuania to Klaipėdos Nafta was declared compatible with the internal market (OJ 2016, C 161, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).

(3)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004, L 134, p. 114).

---