Case C-620/20 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2020 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2020 in Case T-381/15 RENV, IMG v Commission
Date: 2020-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU budget, EU financing, Myanmar/Burma, damages, development aid, financing of aid, implementation of the budget, indemnification, international organisation








C_2021028EN.01003102.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/31






Appeal brought on 19 November 2020 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2020 in Case T-381/15 RENV, IMG v Commission
(Case C-620/20 P)
(2021/C 28/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: International Management Group (IMG) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, avocats)

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 9 September 2020 in Case T-381/15/RENV;










—


consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance as revised and, accordingly:










—


order the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage as amended in its observations after Case T-381/15 RENV was referred back to the General Court;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:






a.


The unlawfulness of the Commission’s conduct






1.


Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 31 January 2019, International Management Group v Commission (C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P);










2.


The judgment under appeal misconstrues the concept of international organisation laid down by the financial regulations: failure to respect international recognition; breach of the hierarchy of norms; failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 31 January 2019, referred to above, and with the financial regulations;










3.


Breach of the principle of sound administration;










4.


The judgment under appeal misconstrued the concept of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals.














b.


The damage






1.


As regards the claims in the first, second and third indents of paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal: breach of the principle of compensation in kind; breach of the duty to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; failure to comply with the conditions governing admissibility; infringement of Article 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;










2.


As regards the claims in the fourth indent of paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal: breach of the obligation to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; infringement of Articles 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;










3.


As regards non-material damage: breach of the principle of compensation in kind; breach of the duty to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; infringement of Article 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; error in the exercise of the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction.