Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62015TN0564

Case T-564/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor/Commission

IO C 398, 30.11.2015, p. 65–66 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.11.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/65

Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor/Commission

(Case T-564/15)

(2015/C 398/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2015 rejecting the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals in the context of the Commission Implementing decision C(2014)1921 final of 26 March 2014 establishing a multi-Annual Work Programme 2014 for financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility;

—

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 a manifest error of assessment

—

The assessment of the applicant’s proposal is incorrect as regards the award criteria of relevance, impact and quality. With a proper evaluation against those award criteria, the proposal should have been selected for EU co-funding.

2.

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

—

The Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment in the contested decision because it has not selected the applicant’s proposal, while it has selected other, similar proposals related to emission abatement technologies.
Top