This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0589
Case T-589/15: Action brought on 12 October 2015 — Eurorail v Commission and INEA
Case T-589/15: Action brought on 12 October 2015 — Eurorail v Commission and INEA
Case T-589/15: Action brought on 12 October 2015 — Eurorail v Commission and INEA
OJ C 27, 25.1.2016, p. 61–62
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.1.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 27/61 |
Action brought on 12 October 2015 — Eurorail v Commission and INEA
(Case T-589/15)
(2016/C 027/78)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Eurorail NV (Aalst, Belgium) (represented by: J. Derenne, N. Pourbaix and M. Domecq, lawyers)
Defendants: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, that INEA's decision of 17 July 2015 terminating the Grant Agreement (1) and ordering the recovery of part of the advances paid to the applicant, is invalid and unenforceable, and that the final grant amount due to the applicant be set at EUR 951,813; |
|
— |
alternatively, the applicant claims that the Commission and INEA be held contractually liable for the loss caused to the applicant as a result of the decision and order the recovery of EUR 581,770 (plus interest); |
|
— |
alternatively, order INEA/the Commission to withdraw the decision, and; |
|
— |
order INEA/the Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that INEA and the Commission acted in breach of their obligations under the Grant Agreement. As a result, the applicant submits that they wrongfully terminated the Grant Agreement and ordered recovery of part of the advances paid to the applicant. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that INEA and the Commission acted in breach of the principle of performance in good faith of contractual obligations. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that INEA and the Commission breached the applicant's legitimate expectations. |
(1) Grant Agreement MPO/09/058/SI1.5555667 ‘RAIL2’ (Marco Polo II Call 2009).