Case C-346/18 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2018 by Rose Vision, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2018 in Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15 Rose Vision v Commission

Appeal brought on 25 May 2018 by Rose Vision, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2018 in Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15 Rose Vision v Commission

(Case C-346/18 P)

Parties

Appellant: Rose Vision, S.L. (represented by: J.J. Marín López, abogado)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2018, Rose Vision v Commission, T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:124;

— award Rose Vision damages as claimed under the tenth and eleventh grounds of appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1. Error of law in so far as the oral part of the procedure in Case T-587/15 was reopened by means of the Order of the General Court of 10 October 2017 stating, mistakenly, that the reopening had been requested by the appellant;

2. Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal distorted the evidence submitted by stating that the Commission replaced the W2 warning with a W1 warning in July 2012;

3. Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal dismissed, in Case T-45/13 RENV, the request for a declaration of invalidity of the registering of Rose Vision in the Early Warning System (EWS) on the basis that the W2 warning was activated without the appellant being notified, without it being informed of the grounds for that registration, without it being given the opportunity to present its arguments in that regard and without it being able to appeal against that registration;

4. Error of law in so far as no statement of reasons was given in relation to the allegations contained in the fourth plea in law relied upon in Case T-587/15, which were not at all examined in the judgment under appeal;

5. Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal, despite rightly finding that the Commission had failed to comply with the two month time limit laid down in paragraph 5 of Article II.22 of General Conditions FP7 (paragraph 99 of the judgment under appeal), that it had ‘greatly exceeded the time limit of two months’ and that the failure to comply with that time limit was ‘regrettable’ (paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal), failed to declare, as sought by the appellant, that final audit report 11-INFS-025 and audit report 11-BA119-016 are contractually null and void and have no validity or legal effect;

6. Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal distorted the evidence submitted by finding that the Commission had established that Rose Vision had been paid for its participation in the sISI, 4NEM and SFERA projects;

7. Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal, despite recognising that the Commission had breached the obligation of confidentiality laid down in paragraph 1 of Article II.22 of General Conditions FP7 by communicating to third parties information regarding audit 11-INFS-025 (paragraph 158 of the judgment under appeal), rejected, in paragraph 159 and 160 of the judgment under appeal, without providing a statement of reasons, the appellant’s form of order seeking a declaration that the Commission had breached the obligation of confidentiality in relation to audits 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016 (paragraph 215 of the written observations of Rose Vision in Case T-45/13 RENV of 12 September 2016);

8. Ground of appeal alleging breach of the contractual terms of General Conditions FP7 and the principle of contractual legal certainty by endorsing the application of new requirements contained in the 2011 Financial Guide to Rose Vision as regards audits 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016, even though the relevant audit period in relation to audit 11-INFS-025 was between 1 November 2009 and 31 October 2010 for the FutureNEM project and between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2010 for the FIRST and sISI projects;

9. Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the evidence, in particular as regards the Rose Vision document of 30 August 2012, which was not even mentioned in the judgment under appeal;

10. Ground of appeal alleging that the judgment under appeal erroneously dismissed the appellant’s claim for compensation based on non-contractual liability;