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 C-447/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by SA Close, Cegelec against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-259/15, Close and Cegelec v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0447

62019CN0447

June 11, 2019
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

16.9.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/5

(Case C-447/19 P)

(2019/C 312/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: SA Close, Cegelec (represented by: J.-L. Teheux, J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

consequently, grant the form of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly, annul the decision taken on 19 March 2015 by the Parliament awarding the public works contract in respect of the ‘Project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’ lot 73 (energy unit), under reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04, to the consortium ENERGIE-KAD (formed of the companies MERSCH et SCHMITZ PRODUCTION SARL and ENERGOLUX SA) and, in turn, not selecting the appellants’ tender;

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants claim that the General Court failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU, Article 113(2) of the financial regulation and Article 161(2) and (3) of the rules of application of the financial regulation.

The General Court also distorted the scope of the second plea in law raised at first instance, attributed incorrect scope to the concept of manifest error of assessment, the principle of sound administration and the obligations stemming from that principle, and made an error of assessment that led to distortion of the facts and evidence.

Lastly, the appellants submit that the judgment under appeal lacks an adequate statement of reasons, in so far as it in no way addresses certain arguments put forward by them.

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