CELEX: 62019CN0274
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-31 00:00:00
Title: Case C-274/19 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2019 by Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2019 in Case T-198/17, EKETA v European Commission

27.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 182/27
            
         
      Appeal brought on 31 March 2019 by Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2019 in Case T-198/17, EKETA v European Commission
      (Case C-274/19 P)
      (2019/C 182/33)
      Language of the case: Greek
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (represented by: V. Christianos and K. Karagounis, lawyers)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 in Case Τ-198/17 (1),
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Refer the case back to the General Court for a further ruling;
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:
      
                  —
               
               
                  
                     First ground of appeal: The General Court failed to give judgment in accordance with the law and did not assess all the arguments and evidence produced by ΕΚΕΤΑ. The General Court also distorted the facts, as they emerged from that evidence, erred in law as to the allocation of the burden of proof and was in breach of the obligation to state reasons for its decision.
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  
                     Second ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law, in that it misinterpreted the issue of whether there was a risk of conflict of interest.
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  
                     Third ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the principle of proportionality, which it disregarded.
               
            
         (1)  ECLI:EU:T:2019:27.