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 T-871/16: Action brought on 8 December 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0871

62016TN0871

December 8, 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

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/48

(Case T-871/16)

(2017/C 104/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: Y. de Vries, lawyer)

Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the defendant’s decision of 17 July 2015 on the rejection of the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility and on the basis of the Multi-annual Work Programme adopted in 2014;

order the defendant to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court referred to in the application, within three months from the date of the judgment;

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s proposal.

The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant’s evaluation of the applicant’s proposal against the award criteria relevance, impact and quality was deficient.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment

The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant drew an inappropriate distinction between its proposal relating to emission abatement technologies and similar proposals by its competitors which have been selected for funding.

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