CELEX: 62014CN0078
Language: en
Date: 2014-02-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-78/14 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2013 in Case T-117/12 ANKO v Commission

7.4.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 102/26
            
         Appeal brought on 13 February 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2013 in Case T-117/12 ANKO v Commission
   (Case C-78/14 P)
   2014/C 102/36
   Language of the case: Greek
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B. Conte)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the General Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the respondent to pay the costs.
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   The Commission concluded, with two separate consortiums of which the respondent ΑΝΚΟ was a member, agreements for the granting of funding for the ‘OASIS’ and ‘PERFORM’ projects within the framework of the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities.
   In the context of the agreement at issue, the Commission claims that the General Court misinterpreted the general terms of the agreement and in particular paragraph (3)(d) of Section II.5 (and incidentally Section ΙΙ.14, second subparagraph of paragraph (1)).
   The misinterpretation of the general terms of the agreement can be broken down into the following particular grounds of appeal:
   
               1.
            
            
               An erroneous assessment of the serious and systematic nature of the irregularities as a ground for suspension;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               An erroneous assessment of the possibility/risk of repetition of the irregularities;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               An erroneous inference from the ad hoc adjustment;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Misinterpretation of the option to use average costs and erroneous extension to use of fictitious costs — distortion of the evidence;
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Confusion of the criteria for suspension (suspicion) and the criteria for eligibility (certainty).