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 62018TN0108

    Case T-108/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

    OJ C 166, 14.5.2018, p. 32–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.5.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 166/32

    Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

    (Case T-108/18)

    (2018/C 166/42)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: University of Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Michel, lawyers)

    Defendants: European Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720-EACEA UKOLD of 21 December 2017;

    —

    annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 7 February 2018;

    —

    suspend the execution of the defendants’ notices with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 21 December 2017 and 7 February 2018 and the defendants’ Debit Note No 3241802552 of 13 February 2018 until the final conclusion of the proceedings for the annulment of the notices contested in this action; and

    —

    order the defendants to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing

    The applicant complains that a premature definitive decision was reached, despite it being known that, without fault of the applicant, it was objectively impossible on the date of the decision for the documents proving appropriate use of funds to be submitted. Further, the objective impossibility of the provision of further information and evidence — for which the applicant was not responsible — was only temporary in nature.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging a misapplication of EU law

    Further, the notices for recovery infringe Article 5(4) TFEU and Article 135(4) of the Financial Regulation and the agreement between the parties, as the actual conditions for recovery are not known.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state adequate reasons for the recovery measures

    The recovery notices contain only superficial, general comments without discussions of specific cases and their content is therefore incomprehensible.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality

    The recovery of the entire amount can only be used as a measure of last resort in certain exceptional circumstances, which are not present in the instant case.
    Top