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 62015TN0588

Case T-588/15: Action brought on 9 October 2015 — GABO:mi v Commission

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016, p. 60–61 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/60

Action brought on 9 October 2015 — GABO:mi v Commission

(Case T-588/15)

(2016/C 027/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (München, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the contested decisions to be void; and

—

order the defendant to bear all costs including the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decisions of the Commission, contained in the e-mail of 29 July 2015 and in the letters of 19 August 2015 (Ref. Ares(2015)3466903) and of 28 August 2015 (Ref. Ares(2015)3557576), to suspend all payments to the applicant related to FP7 grants managed by the defendant’s Directorate E, i.e. FP7 Grant Agreement No 602299 regarding Project EU-CERT-ICD and FP7 Grant Agreement No. 260777 regarding project HIP-Trial and Directorate F, i.e. FP7 Grant Agreement No. 312117 regarding project BIOFECTOR.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are not covered by Article II.5(3)(d) of Annex II to the FP7 Grant Agreement.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions do not meet the applicable formal and procedural requirements and are vitiated by infringement of principles of good governance.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s true intention is to enforce an illegitimate set-off rather than impose precautionary measures.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based on illegitimate discretionary decisions of the defendant.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are vitiated on violations of the principle of proportionality.
Top