- 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 C-172/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-768/14, ANKO v European Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0172
62017CN0172
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
29.5.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 168/27
—
(Case C-172/17 P)
(2017/C 168/36)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:
—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 in Case Τ-768/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the substance.
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant claims that the judgment in Case Τ-768/14 of the General Court of 25 January 2017 contains findings of law which are contrary to rules of EU law and challenges those findings by this appeal.
The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:
iFirst, on the ground of a distortion of the sense of the evidence, in relation to the reliability of the system for the recording of work time.
iiSecond, on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the action, to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.
iiiThird, on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the cross-action, to the allocation of the burden of proof.
ivFourth, on the ground of breach of an essential procedural requirement and, in particular, on the ground of failure to state reasons in relation to whether the Commission’s claim was certain, of a fixed amount and due.
—