This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0034
Case T-34/13: Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission
Case T-34/13: Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission
Case T-34/13: Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission
OJ C 79, 16.3.2013, p. 27–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
16.3.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 79/27 |
Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission
(Case T-34/13)
2013/C 79/48
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini, V. Colcelli and A. Formica, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul Note No 1687862 from the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry of 11 December 2012; |
— |
annul Financial Audit Report No S12.16817; |
and, in so far as necessary, annul the following notes from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Budget Execution (Directorate for General Budget and EDF):
— |
the note of 12 November 2012 concerning ‘Payment by offsetting of debts payable to the Commission’, in which the Commission informed the applicant that the debt of EUR 69 061,80 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the Take-it-Up contract (No 245637) had been offset against the corresponding debt owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833; |
— |
Note No 1380282 of 21 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 16 772,36 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the BCreative contract (No 245599) against the corresponding debt owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833; |
— |
Note No 1380323 of 21 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 16 772,36 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the BCreative contract against the corresponding equivalent debt owed by META Group; |
— |
Note No 1387638 of 22 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 220 518,25 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the Take-it-Up contract (No 245637) and the Ecolink+ contract (No 256224) against the debt of EUR 209 108,92 owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833; |
and, accordingly, order the Commission to:
— |
pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 424 787,90, plus default interest; |
— |
pay compensation in respect of the consequential loss suffered by the applicant; |
and order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action concerns the grant agreements concluded between the applicant and the Commission under the ‘Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007-2013)’.
In support of its action, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the facts, breach of Amendment No 1 to the ECOLINK+ contract of 14 October 2011, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, and infringement of the principles of protection of acquired rights, legal certainty and duty of care.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11 of the grant agreements relating to the CIF Programme (BCreative, Take-IT-Up, Ecolink+), infringement of the principle of reasonableness, and a manifest error in the assessment of the facts.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality of administrative action and infringement of the principles of sound administration and transparency and the principle that criteria must be determined in advance.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the facts, breach of Amendment No 1 to the ECOLINK+ contract of 14 October 2011 and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, good faith, protection of acquired rights, legal certainty and duty of care.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and an inadequate statement of reasons.
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in making the calculations to determine the sums owed to the applicant.
|