Appeal brought on 7 September 2023 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2023 in Case T-752/20, IMG v Commission

(Case C-559/23 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: International Management Group (IMG) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 June 2023 in Case T-752/20, IMG v Commission;

Consequently, grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance and, accordingly,

Rule that the European Commission has incurred non-contractual liability;

Order the respondent to pay compensation for the damage sustained by the appellant, valued, subject to any adjustment, at EUR 10 000 per month for a period beginning in mid-December 2015 and running until delivery of the judgment to be given, in respect of non-material damage, and at EUR 2 100 000  in respect of material damage (to be increased by late payment interest);

Order the respondent to pay all the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises five grounds.

Infringement of Article 340 TFEU and of the concept of a causal link – Breach by the first-instance court of the obligation to state reasons – Infringement of the omnia petita principle

Error of law – Error in the legal characterisation of the facts – Infringement of Article 340 TFEU and the concepts of unlawful conduct and imputability – Distortion of the file

Infringement of the duty of care – Disregard by the court of its obligation to state reasons

Infringement of the duty to act diligently – Infringement of Article 10(3) of Regulation No 883/2013 – Infringement of Article 340 TFEU and of the concept of unlawful conduct

On the request made by the Commission related to the opinion issued by the legal service: infringement of the adversarial principle and of the principle of equality of arms

____________