Case C-790/24 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2024 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 September 2024 in Case T-509/21, IMG v Commission
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU budget, equal treatment, financial regulation, implementation of the budget, indemnification, international organisation, legal person, principle of legal certainty, retroactivity of a law, rights of the defence








C_202500156EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/156


13.1.2025






Appeal brought on 14 November 2024 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 September 2024 in Case T-509/21, IMG v Commission


(Case C-790/24 P)

(C/2025/156)
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 of Justice should






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2024 in Case T-509/21, IMG v Commission;










—


consequently, grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance and, accordingly,






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 8 June 2021, taken in implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2019 (Cases C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P), according to which the appellant is not eligible to implement Union funds under the method of indirect management applicable to international organisations in the framework of the financial rules applicable to the Union,










—


order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage caused;














—


order the defendant to pay all the costs at the two levels of jurisdiction.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant puts forward the following grounds of appeal:
In the first place, the General Court ruled ultra petita. It infringed Article 266 TFEU and the obligation to state reasons that falls on the first-instance court. It also distorted the case file. In any event, it breached the principle of non-retroactivity.
In the second place, the judgment under appeal infringes the force of res judicata and the obligation to state reasons falling on the first-instance court.
In the third place, the General Court infringed the principle of equality and the rights of the defence.
In the fourth place, the General Court infringed the principle of legal certainty and the obligation to state reasons falling on the first-instance court.
In the fifth place, the General Court’s rejection of the fourth plea in law at first instance, alleging manifest errors of assessment and other errors of law, is vitiated by errors of law.
In the sixth place, the General Court breached the principle of good administration, the duty of diligence and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In the seventh place, the judgment under appeal infringes the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms as regards the Commission’s request in respect of the opinion of the legal service.
Lastly, the appellant argues that the judgment under appeal is also vitiated by an error of law in that it rejects the claim for compensation put forward at first instance, inasmuch as the claims for annulment had themselves been rejected following errors of law.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/156/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)