EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0286
Case T-286/10: Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap v European Commission
Case T-286/10: Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap v European Commission
Case T-286/10: Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap v European Commission
IO C 221, 14.8.2010, p. 57–58
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
14.8.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 221/57 |
Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap v European Commission
(Case T-286/10)
()
2010/C 221/91
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap (represented by: G. Chapus-Rapin, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
— |
first, order that this action should have suspensory effect; |
— |
principally,
|
— |
consequently,
|
— |
alternatively,
|
— |
consequently,
|
Pleas in law and main arguments
By this action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant asks in essence that the General Court declare the eligibility of costs incurred in respect of researchers holding permanent employment contracts in relation to the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC contracts within the framework of the specific research and technological development and demonstration programmes ‘Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area (2002-2006)’ and ‘Information Society Technologies (2000-2006)’.
In support of its action, the applicant claims that:
— |
the European Commission's interpretation of the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC contracts, to the effect that costs in respect of permanent employment contracts of researchers are ineligible ordinary operating costs and not additional costs linked to the projects, is arbitrary or at least unfounded, since:
|
— |
the Commission's interpretation is contrary to the principles of good faith and protection of legitimate expectations, since that interpretation has been gradually altered; |
— |
alternatively, the audit procedure which is the subject of the contested decision is vitiated by irremediable defects which demand its annulment. |