Case C‑250/16 P

Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Arbitration clause — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Partial repayment of the sums paid to the appellant — Liquidated damages)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 16 November 2017

1. Action for annulment—Grounds—Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons—Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality

   (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU)

2. Appeal—Grounds—Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal—Inadmissibility—Arguments simply constituting an amplification of a plea relied on in the application—Admissibility

   (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

3. Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

4. Judicial proceedings—Burden of proof—Evidence not produced by the parties—No obligation on the EU judicature to obtain it—Not included

5. Appeal—Grounds—Mistaken assessment of the facts—Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the interpretation of a contract term—Not included

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169)

6. Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117)

7. Appeal—Grounds—Plea directed against the decision of the General Court on costs—Inadmissible where all other pleas are rejected

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 16)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 29)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 38, 39)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 41)

5.  The interpretation of a term of a contract by the General Court constitutes a question of fact which cannot be subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice in the context of an appeal.

   (see para. 49)

6.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 55, 56)

7.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 65)