CELEX: 62016CN0198
Language: en
Date: 2016-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-198/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission

1.8.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 279/9
            
         Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission
   (Case C-198/16 P)
   (2016/C 279/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (represented by: R. Sciaudone, avvocato)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the substance in the light of the guidance to be provided by the Court of Justice;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the cost of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-570/13.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
               1.
            
            
               As regards award criteria Nos 1 and 2: distortion and misrepresentation of the arguments put forward by the appellant; breach of the principle of compensation for damage as regards its scope of application.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               As regards the concept of an abnormally low offer: distortion of the assessments of the evaluation committee and breach of the obligation to state the grounds on which a judgment is based; distortion of the procedural documents and contradictory reasoning as the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the evaluation committee.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Distortion and misrepresentation of the application and the evidence concerning the bid in respect of additional tasks; misinterpretation of the parameters relating to the concept of an abnormally low offer and of the rights of the parties to the proceedings to verification of the anomaly identified: breach of the tendering rules; distortion and misrepresentation of the appellant’s evidence.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Misinterpretation of the actual and certain nature of the damage for which compensation is to be paid.