Order;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2019:305
Date: 2019-04-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Public procurement in the European Union
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Action for damages
Origin: Belgium

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 April 2019 — Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA (Case C‑794/18 P) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public supply contracts — Action for annulment — Concept of a ‘purely confirmatory measure’ — Manifest error of assessment — Distortion of the facts) 1. Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 3, 4) 2. Action for annulment — Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier decision that was not contested before the time limit — Inadmissibility — Concept of confirmatory decision — Re-examination of an earlier decision in reply to a claim of new and substantial facts — Precluded — Concept of new and substantial facts — Scope (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 5, 6) 3. Appeal —Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 5, 6) Operative part 1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. 2. Pracsis SPRL and Conceptexpo Project shall bear their own costs.