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 62008TN0184

    Case T-184/08: Action brought on 12 May 2008 — Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos v Commission

    OJ C 209, 15.8.2008, p. 55–55 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    12/05/2008
    Date lodged:
    12/05/2008
    Author:
    Court of First Instance
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    Portuguese

    15.8.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 209/55

    Action brought on 12 May 2008 — Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos v Commission

    (Case T-184/08)

    (2008/C 209/99)

    Language of the case: Portuguese

    Parties

    Applicant: Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos (Rominha, Alvaiázere, Portugal) (represented by A. Marques Fernandes, lawyer)

    Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

    Form of order sought

    —

    annulment of the European Commission's decision, adopted in connection with Case 89 0488 P1, notified to the applicant on 3 March 2008, deciding that the applicant must be required to repay the sum of EUR 25 485,00, equivalent to PTE 5 109 287.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The training programme was carried out in full.

    The auditors used criteria far removed from reality and for reasons quite foreign to the applicant they treated costs as ineligible.

    All the expenditure ought to have been regarded as eligible and taken into consideration in the final account.

    After the lapse of twenty years, repayment of any amount is flagrant injustice and runs counter to the fundamental principles of proportionality and of certainty for citizens before the law and the institutions.

    Top