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-45/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2016 by d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-106/13 Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0045

62016CN0045

January 26, 2016
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

14.3.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/26

(Case C-45/16 P)

(2016/C 098/33)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (represented by: Κonstantinos Damis, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015 in Case T-l06/13 d.d.Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission;

uphold the company’s action of 20.2.2013 in its entirety;

order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1.Misapplication of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract at issue. The General Court erred in its assessment of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, with respect to the application of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract.

2.Misinterpretation and misapplication of the terms of the contract and manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence. The General Court erred in the application of Article ΙΙ.22 Financial Audits and Controls in Annex II to the signed ARTreat — 224297 agreement, being the contract at issue.

3.Manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence and deficient statement of reasons. Insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons for the findings of the judgment. The General Court erroneously and manifestly distorted the evidence adduced.

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