EN
C 63/26
Official Journal of the European Union
20.2.2023
More alternatively — rule or take such other measures as the European Court of Justice shall deem just and appropriate.
In the procedural issue — order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the lawyer's fees on its part.
Pleas in law and main arguments The Applicant put forward four pleas in law, some of which consist of several parts.
By these pleas, LE submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law by: — basing its assessment of the substance of the contested decision on the statement of objections provided by the European Commission; — applying excessively strict and incorrect rules of evidence to decisions; — limiting the judicial review to be carried out by the General Court to the minimum; — failing to observe the applicable legal criteria relating to the procedural legal principles and ignored legal principles, such as adversarial proceedings, principles of equal treatment, good administration, legitimate expectations and case law in favor of the Applicant; — relying on alleged evidence that was not provided or submitted to Applicant prior to the Decision taken by the Commission.
Appeal brought on 29 December 2022 by ‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o.
Srbac against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 October 2022 in Case T-81/21, ‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. v Commission (Case C-787/22 P) (2023/C 63/33) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: ‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o.
Srbac (represented by: D. Diris, advocaat, D. Rjabynina, advocaat) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission Form of order sought The appellant claim that the Court should: — Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded; — Set aside the judgement delivered by the General Court on 19 October 2022 in Case T-81/21; — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 263 TFEU, Regulation No 883/2013 (1) and Regulation No 1049/2001 (2), as well as a failure to state reasons and contradictory reasoning in the examination of the admissibility of the action for annulment; Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 124 of the Bosnian-European Agreement, Article 7(2) and (4) of Protocol 5, Articles 21 juncto 51 CFR and Regulation No 883/2013 in the examination of the applicable law and OLAF’s responsibility in general and in particular during the inspection of 4 December 2019;