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 62014TN0632

    Case T-632/14: Action brought on 25 August 2014  — Intercon v Commission

    IO C 380, 27.10.2014, p. 16–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    25/08/2014
    Date lodged:
    25/08/2014
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Polainnis

    27.10.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 380/16

    Action brought on 25 August 2014 — Intercon v Commission

    (Case T-632/14)

    2014/C 380/22

    Language of the case: Polish

    Parties

    Applicant: Intercon Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: B. Eger, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    hold that, by issuing an order for repayment of the amount of EUR 2 58  479,21, the Commission has breached the provisions of Grant Agreement No ARTreat — 224297 under the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7);

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law:

    —

    exceeding of the limits of the scope of examination by reason of the audit which was carried out and the consequent impermissible evaluation of the results of that audit.

    2.

    Second plea in law:

    —

    failure to take into account the Form C signed by the beneficiary, although the Commission had requested that this be submitted, and failure to take account of evidence in the form of a declaration of an employee that it was not possible to obtain the documents from the coordinator of the consortium.

    3.

    Third plea in law:

    —

    Failure to take into account new comments and clarifications by reference to Article II.22.5 of the annex to the agreement, even though the Commission had requested the beneficiary to submit these and had imposed a time-limit for that purpose.
    Top