Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62014TN0499

Case T-499/14: Action brought on 23 June 2014 — Ertico — Its Europe v Commission

IO C 380, 27.10.2014, p. 14–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/14

Action brought on 23 June 2014 — Ertico — Its Europe v Commission

(Case T-499/14)

2014/C 380/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — Its Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T'Syen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul the decision of the Validation panel of the European Commission of 15 April 2014 holding that the applicant does not qualify as a micro, small and medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (L 124, p. 36); and

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Validation Panel’s conclusion that the applicant would not qualify as a micro, small and medium-sized enterprise is based on a manifestly wrong reading of Article 3(4) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by concluding that the applicant would not qualify as a micro, small and medium-sized enterprise and by leaving the door open for the Commission to re-claim the FP7 grants that were awarded to the applicant in the past, the Validation Panel breached the fundamental principles of European law of: (i) sound administration; (ii) legal certainty; and (iii) the protection of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Validation Panel infringed the applicant’s rights of defence and breached the principle of sound administration in that it failed to give the applicant the opportunity to effectively make its views known.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Validation Panel failed to comply with its duty to duly motivate its decision.
Top