This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0450
Case C-450/14 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2014 by Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 16 July 2014 in Case T-59/11 Isotis v Commission
Case C-450/14 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2014 by Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 16 July 2014 in Case T-59/11 Isotis v Commission
Case C-450/14 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2014 by Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 16 July 2014 in Case T-59/11 Isotis v Commission
OJ C 395, 10.11.2014, p. 29–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
10.11.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 395/29 |
Appeal brought on 26 September 2014 by Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 16 July 2014 in Case T-59/11 Isotis v Commission
(Case C-450/14 P)
(2014/C 395/34)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Appellant: Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis (represented by: S. Skliris, dikigoros)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
— |
set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 July 2014 in Case T-59/11 Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis v European Commission; |
— |
uphold the company’s action in its entirety; |
— |
dismiss the Commission’s counterclaim in its entirety; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
1. |
Incorrect application of Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code regarding allocation of the burden of proof
|
2. |
Defective statement of reasons as regards the substantive merits of the counterclaim
|
3. |
Error of law by reason of failure to apply the international auditing standards
|
4. |
Incorrect interpretation of the principle of equality of arms
|
5. |
Incorrect interpretation and application of the principle of good faith and breach of the rights of the defence because of the language of the case
|
6. |
Incorrect interpretation of the terms of the contracts at issue, incorrect application of Greek law and failure to take account of a material submission
|
7. |
Incorrect interpretation of the terms of the contracts at issue, failure to take account of a material submission and distortion of the clear sense of documents
|
8. |
Lack of reasoning, breach of the law applicable to the contracts at issue and distortion of the clear sense of a document
|
9. |
Taking account of a submission which was not put forward and not taking account of a submission which was put forward
|