This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CN0198
Case C-198/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission
Case C-198/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission
Case C-198/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission
OJ C 279, 1.8.2016, p. 9–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.8.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 279/9 |
Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission
(Case C-198/16 P)
(2016/C 279/14)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Appellant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (represented by: R. Sciaudone, avvocato)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
|
— |
Set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the substance in the light of the guidance to be provided by the Court of Justice; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the cost of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-570/13. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
|
1. |
As regards award criteria Nos 1 and 2: distortion and misrepresentation of the arguments put forward by the appellant; breach of the principle of compensation for damage as regards its scope of application. |
|
2. |
As regards the concept of an abnormally low offer: distortion of the assessments of the evaluation committee and breach of the obligation to state the grounds on which a judgment is based; distortion of the procedural documents and contradictory reasoning as the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the evaluation committee. |
|
3. |
Distortion and misrepresentation of the application and the evidence concerning the bid in respect of additional tasks; misinterpretation of the parameters relating to the concept of an abnormally low offer and of the rights of the parties to the proceedings to verification of the anomaly identified: breach of the tendering rules; distortion and misrepresentation of the appellant’s evidence. |
|
4. |
Misinterpretation of the actual and certain nature of the damage for which compensation is to be paid. |