Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016TN0805

Case T-805/16: Action brought on 16 November 2016 — IPPT PAN v Commission and REA

OJ C 22, 23.1.2017, p. 47–48 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.1.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/47


Action brought on 16 November 2016 — IPPT PAN v Commission and REA

(Case T-805/16)

(2017/C 022/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki Polskiej Akademii Nauk (IPPT PAN) (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Le Berre, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested Commission decision;

declare that the Commission erred in issuing debit note No 3241514040 (as reduced by credit note No 3233160082) and that the corresponding amount of EUR 67 984,13 is not due by the applicant;

declare that the Commission and REA shall pay to the applicant under the project SMART-NEST the amount of EUR 69 623,94 together with interest from the date of the decision;

declare that the applicant should not pay liquidated damages to the Commission with regard to the projects KMM-NOE and BOOSTING BALTIC;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 47 and 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on access to justice and access to the Ombudsman.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the contracts for projects KMM-NOE, BOOSTING BALTIC and SMART-NEST and of applicable Belgian law.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the Financial Regulation and of the Commission delegated Financial Regulation.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging misuse of power by the Commission.

In support of the action for contractual remedies based on Article 272 TFEU, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant has satisfied its obligation under article II.19.1 of the contracts for the projects KMM NOE and BOOSTING BALTIC.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not provided evidence in support of its claim.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not validly established its claim.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not implemented its contractual rights in good faith.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that liquidated damages claimed under Article II.30 are excessive and should be reduced under Article 1231 of the Belgian Civil Code.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that a payment is due to the applicant under project SMART-NEST as the remaining part of the refund of the applicant’s contribution to the Guarantee Fund.


Top