Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62022TN0026

Case T-26/22: Action brought on 13 January 2022 — CIMV v Commission

OJ C 109, 7.3.2022, pp. 30–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 109, 7.3.2022, pp. 14–15 (GA)

7.3.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/30

Action brought on 13 January 2022 — CIMV v Commission

(Case T-26/22)

(2022/C 109/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret, R. Rard and P. Renié, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

—

Annul the contested decision;

—

In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the contested decision in so far as it provides for enforcement;

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Decision C(2021) 7932 final of the European Commission of 28 October 2021, concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 5 888 214,59, plus interest, owed by the CIMV, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a clear substantive error resulting from the failure to take into account the schedule proposed by the CIMV and failure to state adequate reasons for the contested decision.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to be heard and the principle of sound administration.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and failure to have regard for the aim of effective protection of the financial interests of the European Union.
Top