This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0770
Case T-770/14: Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Italy v Commission
Case T-770/14: Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Italy v Commission
Case T-770/14: Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Italy v Commission
IO C 26, 26.1.2015, p. 39–40
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
26.1.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 26/39 |
Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-770/14)
(2015/C 026/50)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, Agent)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the note of 11 September 2014 (reference: Ares (2014) 2 9 75 571) by which the European Commission notified the Italian Republic of the automatic decommitment, on 31 December 2013, of resources relating to ERDF commitments referred to in the Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013; and, ruling on the substance, declare the expenditure and the applications for payment at issue in the present case to be eligible. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law: failure to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
|
2. |
Second plea in law: failure to observe the principle of partnership in the management of structural funds, the principle of cooperation between Member States and EU institutions, and the principle of respecting the constitutional identity of Member States.
|
3. |
Third plea in law: infringement of Article 96(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.
|
4. |
As its fourth and final plea in law, the applicant alleges failure to observe the principle of proportionality. |