CELEX: 62010CN0200
Language: en
Date: 2010-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-200/10 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 February 2010 in Case T-340/07: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

3.7.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 179/21
            
         Appeal brought on 26 April 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 February 2010 in Case T-340/07: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-200/10 P)
   2010/C 179/35
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, Δικηγόρος)
   
      Other party: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the decision of the General Court, to order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the Appellant as a result of its failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and business Opportunities’ and to order the Commission to pay the Applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Appellant submits that the General Court did not give a sufficiently clear statement of reasons for rejecting the a series of arguments put forward by the Appellant.
   The Appellant submits the General Court committed an error in law in adopting a wrong interpretation of the wording of article 7 (6) of the contract which refers to the obligation of the contractors to take appropriate action to cancel or reduce their commitments upon receipt of the letter from the Commission notifying them of the termination of the contract.