- 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-686/23 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2023 by the Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2023 in Case T-748/20, Commission v CEVA and Others
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0686
62023CN0686
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
Series C
—
C/2024/536
(Case C-686/23 P)
(C/2024/536)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Centre d’etude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (represented by: A. Raccah, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, SELARL AJIRE, SELARL TCA
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—Set aside the judgment of 6 September 2023 in Case T-748/20 European Commission v CEVA and Others;
—Order the European Union to pay CEVA the sum of EUR 30 000 for legal costs.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of the appeal the appellant relies on two grounds.
The first ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court committed errors of law in the application of the limitation rules for a claim. Specifically, the General Court held that the start of the limitation period corresponded to the time when the debit notes were issued and therefore that the moment at which time started to run corresponded to the date of performance of the contract.
According to the appellant, the General Court could not rely on an interruption of the running of the limitation period and as a result the claim at issue was time-barred.
The second ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the principle of sound administration of justice in so far as the General Court relied only on an imprecise reading of the evidence, namely of the OLAF report. In absence of a precise characterisation in the OLAF report, the appellant claims that neither the Commission nor the General Court could acknowledge that it had committed financial irregularities in the performance of the SEAPURA contract.
Moreover, the appellant claims that the General Court could not compel it to repay the funding received in the absence of a conviction against it. The appellant criticises the General Court’s analysis according to which the Commission is able to rely, before the EU judicature, on proceedings commenced in France, on the basis of French law, since the contract in question is based only on Belgian law and confers exclusive jurisdiction to the General Court of the European Union.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/536/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
* * *
Language of the case: French.