EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0695
Case T-695/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — ENAC v Commission and TEN-T EA
Case T-695/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — ENAC v Commission and TEN-T EA
Case T-695/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — ENAC v Commission and TEN-T EA
OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 44–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
22.2.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 52/44 |
Action brought on 31 December 2013 — ENAC v Commission and TEN-T EA
(Case T-695/13)
2014/C 52/83
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile (ENAC) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Garofoli, lawyer, and G. Palmieri, Agent)
Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the European Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, ref. Ares (203) 3321778, concerning the ‘Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport’, in which the Commission announced both the launch of the procedure for obtaining reimbursement of part of the financial assistance granted for the carrying-out of that study and the issuing of a debit note for a total of EUR 158 517,54; |
— |
annul the decision of 18 March 2013 adopted by the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), referred to in the Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, concerning the ‘Closure of Action 2009-IT-91407-S — Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport — Commission Decision C(2010) 4456’, in so far as it found that the costs related to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which had already been carried out, could not be identified, and, thus, could not be subsidised, and requested repayment of EUR 158 517,54. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The decisions at issue in the present case are the same as those contested in Case T-270/13 and Case T-692/13 SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the ones raised in those cases.