# C_2023286EN.01001502.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/15

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2023 by Vialto Consulting Kft. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-537/18, Vialto Consulting Kft. v Commission

(Case C-130/23 P)

(2023/C 286/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Vialto Consulting Kft. (represented by: S. Paliou and A. Skoulikis, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 in Case T-537/18; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 in Case T-537/18; (1)

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward three grounds:

First, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law and distortion of the facts in relation to the publication of the exclusion of the appellant on the Commission’s website; the General Court held that the publication of the exclusion on the Commission’s website was proportionate, although the reasoning given by the Commission in connection with that publication was neither specific nor distinct from the reasoning given in connection with the exclusion, despite this being required under Article 106(16) of Regulation No 966/2012. (2)

Second, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law in relation to failure to comply with the requirement to supply information under Article 106(16) of Regulation No 966/2012. The appellant argues that the General Court erred in law in so far as it found that the failure to mention, in the publication of the exclusion, that no final decision or final administrative decision had been made, even though it is required under Article 106(16) of Regulation No 966/2012, is not a breach of an essential procedural requirement and does not affect the legal or factual situation of the appellant.

Third, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law in relation to the rejection of the claim for compensation. Bearing in mind that the appellant claims that the General Court’s finding that there was no breach of the principle of proportionality as far as concerns the publication of the exclusion of the appellant on the Commission’s website is vitiated by an error of law and must be set aside, it is also appropriate to set aside the findings of the judgment under appeal by which the General Court rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation on the ground that no unlawfulness on the part of the Commission had been established.

---

(1)  ECLI:EU:T:2022:852.

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

---