EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0084
Case T-84/17: Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
Case T-84/17: Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
Case T-84/17: Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
OJ C 95, 27.3.2017, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.3.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 95/24 |
Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
(Case T-84/17)
(2017/C 095/32)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Consorzio IB Innovation (Bentivoglio, Italy) (represented by: A. Masutti and P. Manzini, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision, in part or in full, on the basis of the pleas in law relied on; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action has been brought against the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation’s decision of 30 November 2016 (ref: Ares 2016-6711369), whereby the Commission agreed with Lubbock Fine’s Final Report No 14-BA259-027 of 21 November 2016 and consequently found that Consorzio IB Innovation (‘the Consorzio’ or ‘IBI’) was under an obligation to repay EUR 294 925,43 in relation to Contract No 261679-CONTAIN and EUR 155 482,91 in relation to Contract No 288383-ICARGO, and to verify whether there were systemic errors in relation to a series of subsequent contracts.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging an incorrect and contradictory interpretation of the terms ‘beneficiary’ and ‘third parties’, in breach of the General Agreement (GA) and the General Conditions contained in Annex II to the GA.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has no legal basis, contains a contradictory statement of reasons and infringes the principle of sound administration.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of Article II.15.2.c of Annex II to the CONTAIN and ICARGO GAs.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the language rules applicable within the European Union.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration on the basis of a lack of diligence and care in the examination of the case.
|