EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-335/24: Action brought on 3 July 2024 – Ferrocarriles de Gran Canaria v CINEA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0335

62024TN0335

July 3, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/4976

19.8.2024

(Case T-335/24)

(C/2024/4976)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ferrocarriles de Gran Canaria, SA (Las Palmas, Spain) (represented by: J. Navas Marqués, lawyer)

Defendant: European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision taken by CINEA on 3 May 2024 entitled ‘Project: 101175881 – 23-ES-TG-TREN GRAN CANARIA – CEF-T-2023-COREGEN’;

order CINEA to declare admissible the applicant’s request for review of the admissibility/eligibility or evaluation of the proposal, to take account of the letter of support from the Spanish State submitted within the period allowed for redress (30 days), and to declare the applicant eligible to obtain the EU funds referred to in the CEF 2023 call for tenders;

order CINEA to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and of the guarantee to a fair and transparent process in so far as the existence of force majeure and the principle of protection of the outermost regions were not taken into account.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11(2) and (6) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014 (OJ 2021 L 249, p. 38).

3.Third plea in law, based on the principle of sound administration, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the right to be heard.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons and to fulfil the obligation to provide reasons and clear information in the decisions taken.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4976/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia