CELEX: 62016CN0456
Language: en
Date: 2016-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-456/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission

24.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 392/14
            
         Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission
   (Case C-456/16 P)
   (2016/C 392/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 in Cases T-438/12 to T-441/12 and, in particular, in Case T-439/12, Trefilerías Quijano v European Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The General Court erred in law in declaring inadmissible the plea in law relating to the infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal standard when evaluating the second request for inability to pay and, consequently, the admissibility of the action.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The General Court erred in law in evaluating the evidence or clearly distorting the evidence, failing to carry out a full review exercising its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, infringing the right to effective judicial protection and failing to state reasons.