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 62011TN0029

    Case T-29/11: Action brought on 14 January 2011 — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission

    OJ C 80, 12.3.2011, p. 23–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    12.3.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 80/23

    Action brought on 14 January 2011 — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission

    (Case T-29/11)

    2011/C 80/46

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Technische Universität Dresden (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of the Commission of 4 November 2010, debit note No 3241011712, concerning the repayment of a sum in the amount of EUR 55 377,62;

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:

    1.

    Infringement of Community law due to an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts

    The applicant submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts as regards the eligibility of certain personnel expenses, subsistence expenses and travel costs. It also submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts in connection with various services.

    2.

    Infringement of Community law due to serious errors of reasoning

    The applicant submits in this connection that there is a failure to state reasons in the debit note, erroneous reasoning as regards the granting and withdrawal of subsistence expenses and travel costs and a failure to state the reasons for the increase in the ineligible sum regarding the category of ‘various services’.
    Top