- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-766/21 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2021 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-384/19, Parliament v Axa Assurances Luxembourg SA and Others
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0766
62021CN0766
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
14.3.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 119/21
—
(Case C-766/21)
(2022/C 119/28)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Paladini and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Axa Assurances Luxembourg SA, Bâloise Assurances Luxembourg SA, La Luxembourgeoise SA, Nationale-Nederlanden Schadeverzekering Maatschappij NV
Form of order sought
—annul the second and fourth paragraphs of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;
—refer the case back to the General Court;
—reserve costs, with the exception of those which are subject to the third paragraph of the operative part of the judgment under appeal.
In the alternative,
—annul the second and fourth paragraphs of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;
—grant the form of order sought by the European Parliament at first instance in respect of Axa Assurances Luxembourg SA, Bâloise Assurances Luxembourg SA and La Luxembourgeoise SA.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of its appeal, the European Parliament raises three grounds of appeal.
The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law consisting in the infringement of the principles of interpretation of EU law. The Parliament considers that the General Court disregarded, in particular, the rule of interpretation consisting in taking account of the purpose of the contract and the context in which its terms, and more specifically the term ‘flooding’, appear. In the alternative, the Parliament takes the view that the General Court distorted the exclusion clause relating to flooding.
The second ground of appeal alleges an error relating to reasoning of the judgment under appeal, which is, in the Parliament’s view, vitiated by a contradiction in the reasoning of the General Court on the interpretation of the term ‘flooding’.
Thirdly, the Parliament considers that the judgment under appeal contains several distortions of the facts and evidence: the General Court distorted the Parliament’s position on the interpretation of the term ‘flooding’; it assessed the situation of the building site at the time of the damage in a manifestly erroneous manner, and also distorted the findings of the expert report on the causes of the damage.
—