Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62021TN0509

Case T-509/21: Action brought on 18 August 2021 — IMG v Commission

OJ C 431, 25.10.2021, p. 43–43 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.10.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/43

Action brought on 18 August 2021 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-509/21)

(2021/C 431/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

and, consequently,

—

annul the Commission decision of 8 June 2021 implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2019 (Cases C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P), according to which the applicant is not eligible to implement Union funds under indirect management as an international organisation pursuant to the applicable financial rules;

—

order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of material and non-material damage;

—

order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU. In that regard, the applicant relies on an infringement of the force of res judicata of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2019.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of diligence on the grounds of infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

4.

Fourth plea in law, in which the applicant alleges that the decision is vitiated by errors in law and manifest errors of assessment.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to have its affairs handled within a reasonable time.
Top