16.9.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/9

Appeal brought on 26 July 2019 by European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2019 in Case T-604/15: Ertico — ITS Europe v Commission

(Case C-572/19 P)

(2019/C 312/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T'Syen, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—quash the judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 in Case T-604/15;

—annul the Contested Decision (1) and confirm the SME (micro, small and medium-sized enterprise) status of the appellant; and

—order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings, including the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

1)The contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law in that it finds that (i) sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2012/838/EU (2) of 18 December 2012 on the adoption of the Rules to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacities, in indirect actions supported through the form of a grant under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities and under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities and (ii) Article 22 of Council Regulation No. 58/2003 (3) of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes relate to separate remedies.

2)The contested judgment misapplies and violates the SME Recommendation (4) and violates the fundamental legal principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations (and is therefore vitiated by an error of law) by finding that it is legally permitted to deny the appellant the status of SME based on the ‘purpose and spirit’ of the SME Recommendation despite the fact that the appellant formally satisfies the criteria of the SME Recommendation (which is not contradicted by the contested judgment).

3)The contested judgment is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and substantively invalid, in so far as it finds that the appellant ‘did not have to contend with the handicaps usually faced by SMEs’ (and that the appellant therefore would not be an SME under the ‘purpose and spirit’ of the SME Recommendation).

*

Decision of the Validation Panel of the European Commission of 18 August 2015.

(2) OJ 2012, L 359, p. 45.

(3) OJ 2003, L 11, p. 1.

(4) Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003, L 124, p. 36).