- 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 T-149/16: Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0149
62016TN0149
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
13.6.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 211/56
(Case T-149/16)
(2016/C 211/70)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme;
—order the Commission to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court, within three months from the date of the judgment;
—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment
—The assessment of the applicant’s proposal is incorrect as regards the award criteria of relevance, impact and quality. With a proper evaluation against those award criteria, the proposal should have been selected for EU co-funding.
2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment
—The Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment in the contested decision because it has not selected the applicant’s proposal, while it has selected other similar proposals related to emission abatement technologies.