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-78/14 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2013 in Case T-117/12 ANKO v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0078

62014CN0078

February 13, 2014
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/26

(Case C-78/14 P)

2014/C 102/36

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B. Conte)

Other party to the proceedings: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court;

order the respondent to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Commission concluded, with two separate consortiums of which the respondent ΑΝΚΟ was a member, agreements for the granting of funding for the ‘OASIS’ and ‘PERFORM’ projects within the framework of the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities.

In the context of the agreement at issue, the Commission claims that the General Court misinterpreted the general terms of the agreement and in particular paragraph (3)(d) of Section II.5 (and incidentally Section ΙΙ.14, second subparagraph of paragraph (1)).

The misinterpretation of the general terms of the agreement can be broken down into the following particular grounds of appeal:

1.An erroneous assessment of the serious and systematic nature of the irregularities as a ground for suspension;

2.An erroneous assessment of the possibility/risk of repetition of the irregularities;

3.An erroneous inference from the ad hoc adjustment;

4.Misinterpretation of the option to use average costs and erroneous extension to use of fictitious costs — distortion of the evidence;

5.Confusion of the criteria for suspension (suspicion) and the criteria for eligibility (certainty).

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