This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CN0635
Case C-635/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission
Case C-635/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission
Case C-635/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission
IO C 70, 6.3.2017, p. 9–10
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
6.3.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 70/9 |
Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission
(Case C-635/16 P)
(2017/C 070/14)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV (represented by: Y. de Vries, advocaat)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 in case T-564/15; |
|
— |
refer the case back to the General Court; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The General Court erred in law by finding that the action is inadmissible, given that it is directed against the Commission, who is not the author of the contested act;
The General Court erred in law by finding that the action was inadmissible because the contested act is merely provisional in nature and therefore is not a definitive act;
The General Court erred in law by rejecting Spliethoff’s request to treat its action for annulment as if it were directed against the 31 July Decision (1).
(1) Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme