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 62022TN0069

Case T-69/22: Action brought on 4 February 2022 — Eurecna v Commission

OJ C 148, 4.4.2022, p. 34–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 148, 4.4.2022, p. 26–26 (GA)

4.4.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/34

Action brought on 4 February 2022 — Eurecna v Commission

(Case T-69/22)

(2022/C 148/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision to offset debts contained in the letter of the Commission of 25 November 2021, by which the Commission decided to recover the amount of EUR 22 139,05 from the amount of EUR 417 234,68 distributed in the context of a project funded by the European Union and regarded as recoverable following irregularities allegedly committed at the financial reporting stage; and

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, divided into four parts.

1.

Single plea, alleging absence of the contested claim.

—

The applicant alleges in this regard infringement of the principle of good administration and diligence of the administrative action relating to the expenditure verification carried out by Ernst & Young (EY); infringement of the rights of the defence relating to the expenditure verification carried out by EY; infringement of the principle of good administration by failing to have regard to the duty of impartiality in the context of the administrative action; and incorrect interpretation of the contract in the report made by EY.
Top