?

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

?

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 62011CN0469

Case C-469/11 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2011 in Case T-409/09: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

SL C 331, 12.11.2011, p. 13–13 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.11.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/13

Appeal brought on 14 September 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2011 in Case T-409/09: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-469/11 P)

2011/C 331/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, Δικηγόρος)

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 in case T-409/09,

—

reject in its entirety the Plea of Inadmissibility submitted by the Commission,

—

refer to the General Court the case in order to Judge the substance of the case,

—

order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested order should be set aside on the following grounds:

—

The General Court erred in law by not applying the provision of article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure which refers to the extension on account of distance by a single period of 10 days to cases arriving to establish the non-contractual liability of the European Institutions.

—

The General Court, by not applying the provisions of article 102(2), infringed the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty.

—

The General Court erred in law by accepting that the limitation period began to run as from the time the Commission's decision to reject the appellant's tender was communicated to the appellant.
Top