CELEX: 62016CN0045
Language: en
Date: 2016-01-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-45/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2016 by d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-106/13 Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission

14.3.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 98/26
            
         Appeal brought on 26 January 2016 by d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-106/13 Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission
   
   (Case C-45/16 P)
   (2016/C 098/33)
   Language of the case: Greek
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (represented by: Κonstantinos Damis, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015 in Case T-l06/13 d.d.Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               uphold the company’s action of 20.2.2013 in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs.
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Misapplication of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract at issue.
               The General Court erred in its assessment of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, with respect to the application of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Misinterpretation and misapplication of the terms of the contract and manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
               The General Court erred in the application of Article ΙΙ.22 Financial Audits and Controls in Annex II to the signed ARTreat — 224297 agreement, being the contract at issue.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence and deficient statement of reasons.
               Insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons for the findings of the judgment.
               The General Court erroneously and manifestly distorted the evidence adduced.