EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/074/56
Case T-33/06: Action brought on 19 January 2006 — Zenab v Commission
Case T-33/06: Action brought on 19 January 2006 — Zenab v Commission
Case T-33/06: Action brought on 19 January 2006 — Zenab v Commission
OB C 74, 25.3.2006, p. 30–30
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.3.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 74/30 |
Action brought on 19 January 2006 — Zenab v Commission
(Case T-33/06)
(2006/C 74/56)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Zenab SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey, P. de Bandt, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities dated 9 November 2005 under reference 648599; |
|
— |
hold the Community liable for non-contractual damage and order the Commission to pay the applicant (i) the sum of EUR 36 707 as damages in respect of the costs incurred for the purposes of the call for proposals, and (ii) the amount of the non-pecuniary loss because of damage to reputation and the material loss resulting from the delay in the execution of the EuroVOD project and appoint an expert to assess that loss, as determined by an expert to be appointed by the Court; |
|
— |
in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
This application seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's application for Community financial support within the framework of the MEDIA Plus programme (Call for Proposals INFSO/MEDIA/04/05), as well as compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by it because of the adoption of the contested decision.
In support of its action for annulment, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. The first plea alleges unlawful delegation of its powers by the Commission to the technical consultation group appointed to determine the application for financial support submitted by the applicant.
As part of the second plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment which, in its submission, justify the annulment of the contested decision. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the reasoning set out in the contested decision is insufficient and contradictory and does not enable the grounds justifying the rejection of its proposal to be understood.
For the purposes of the action for damages, the applicant seeks, relying on the principle of the non-contractual liability of the Community, compensation for the loss allegedly suffered because of the erroneous determination of its proposal submitted within the framework of the call for proposals in question. The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to comply with its duty of diligence and sound administration and that such conduct constitutes a serious breach of Community law justifying the engagement of the Community's liability.