This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0546
Case T-546/11: Action brought on 11 October 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
Case T-546/11: Action brought on 11 October 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
Case T-546/11: Action brought on 11 October 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
OJ C 355, 3.12.2011, p. 28–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
3.12.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 355/28 |
Action brought on 11 October 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
(Case T-546/11)
2011/C 355/51
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
— |
Accept the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
— |
Declare it admissible; |
— |
Declare the action to be well-founded and annul the decision of 2 August 2011 of the Information Society and Media Directorate-General of the European Commission; |
— |
Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, is in two parts based on:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment on the ground that the contested decision does not prove, on the basis of the evidence relied upon, that the services for which the Commission claims repayment were not actually performed. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectation and proportionality on the ground that the Commission:
|