This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0296
Case T-296/08: Action brought on 28 July 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission of the European Communities
Case T-296/08: Action brought on 28 July 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission of the European Communities
Case T-296/08: Action brought on 28 July 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission of the European Communities
IO C 247, 27.9.2008, p. 19–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
27.9.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 247/19 |
Action brought on 28 July 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-296/08)
(2008/C 247/38)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Claus, lawyer, acting as Agent)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the Commission Decision of 23 May 2008 definitively granting a payment under the ‘Integration indicators and generation change’ programme on the basis of the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077, insofar as applicant's application for a final payment of EUR 59 592,77, exceeding the authorised amount, was rejected; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant and the Commission signed a contract in May 2005 concerning the promotion of a project in the context of the INTI programme. By letter dated 23 May 2008, the defendant granted the applicant a lower final payment than that for which the latter had applied. The present action is directed against the rejection of its application for payment of the costs exceeding the authorised sum.
The applicant asserts in support of its action that the Commission's view that a change of project participants after the conclusion of the financing arrangement is only possible if an appropriate alteration agreement is concluded is unfounded. This is due to the fact that a provision to that effect is not included in the financing arrangement. Further, the Commission refused to recognise costs on various grounds, which are incompatible with the financing arrangement and with previous institutional practice.