CELEX: 62017CN0222
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-222/17 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2017 by Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA) and Armando Álvarez, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union

3.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 213/22
            
         Appeal brought on 27 April 2017 by Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA) and Armando Álvarez, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union
   (Case C-222/17 P)
   (2017/C 213/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA) and Armando Álvarez, S.A. (represented by: S. Moya Izquierdo and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of General Court of the European Union of 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15 and order the European Union to pay the appellants EUR 3 495 038,66, together with the corresponding compensatory and late-payment interest, by way of compensation due as a result of the General Court’s infringement of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Failure to state adequate reasons and error of law in calculating the appropriate length of time between the end of the written part of the procedure and the opening of the oral part of the procedure.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Error of law as regards the assessment of the interest on the fine as damage.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Error of law in the application of the principle that a court is prohibited from adjudicating ultra petita.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Infringement of the appellants’ rights of defence in relation to the evaluation of the material damage suffered.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Error of law in that the judgment under appeal contains a manifest contradiction in relation to the period in respect of which compensation had to be paid.