6.11.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/17

—

(Case C-433/10 P)

()

2010/C 301/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Volker Mauerhofer (represented by: J. Schartmüller, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the order under appeal;

—rule definitively on the substance and annul the contested measure or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule again on the case and;

—exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and award him the sum of EUR 5 500 by way of compensation for the financial loss resulting from the unlawful conduct in adopting the contested measure and from the lack of appropriate instructions to the team leader (expert 1);

—order that the Framework Contract Support Team should produce the Contractor Assessment Form submitted concerning the project subject of the dispute;

—order the Defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested order should be set aside on the following grounds:

—Distortion of facts concerning the linguistic review of the appellant's contribution;

—Inadequate analysis of the grounds of the Order under appeal concerning the linguistic review;

—Inadequate analysis of the issue concerning the defendant's performance;

—Unlawful assumption that the contested decision does not affect the position of the Appellant as a third party;

—Unlawful assumption that the contested measure brought about no distinct change in the Appellant's legal position;

—Unlawful assumption that the contested measure has not been adopted by the Defendant in the exercise of its powers as a public authority;

—Unlawful assumption that the contested measure was formalised in a timely and correct manner;

—Unlawful breach of the interests of the Appellant by not following prescribed procedures;

—Breach of the general community law principle of equal treatment and breach of the fundamental rights of the Appellant;

—Unlawful assumption of a non-substantial change in the distribution of days among experts;

—Breach of the general community rights to a fair hearing.

—