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 62012CN0034

Case C-34/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 January 2012 by Idromacchine Srl and Others against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 November 2011 in Case T-88/09 Idromacchine Srl and Others v Commission

SL C 89, 24.3.2012, p. 15–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
24/01/2012
Date lodged:
24/01/2012
Author:
Sud
Form:
Pravosudna informacija
Authentic language:
talijanski
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Link

24.3.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/15

Appeal brought on 24 January 2012 by Idromacchine Srl and Others against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 November 2011 in Case T-88/09 Idromacchine Srl and Others v Commission

(Case C-34/12 P)

2012/C 89/23

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Idromacchine Srl, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2011 in Case T-88/09 in so far as it:

—

failed to recognise that Idromacchine suffered material damage;

—

recognised that Idromacchine suffered only negligible non-material damage;

—

failed to recognise that Messrs Capuzzo suffered non-material damage;

—

accordingly, grant the forms of order sought by the appellants at first instance.

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants claim that the General Court erred in law in the following respects:

I.

Manifest error, apparent from the documents before the Court, in finding that a declaration that the damaging factual allegations relied on by Idromacchine were false could not constitute the subject matter of the proceedings;

II.

Inadequate and, in any event, incorrect statement of reasons with regard to the rejection of the complaints alleging breach of the duty to exercise due care and of the rights of the defence;

III.

Manifest distortion, apparent from the documents before the Court, of the facts and evidence with regard to material damage — Breach of the rules governing the burden of proof — Defective reasoning;

IV.

Breach of the duty to state reasons, of the principle of proportionality and non-discrimination and denial of justice with regard to the criteria for quantifying the non-material damage which it is acknowledged Idromacchine suffered;

V.

Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, failure to state reasons, manifest substantive inaccuracy, apparent from the documents before the Court, as regards the failure to recognise that compensation should be awarded for the non-material damage suffered by Messrs Capuzzo.
Top