EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0010
Case T-10/16: Action brought on 14 January 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission
Case T-10/16: Action brought on 14 January 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission
Case T-10/16: Action brought on 14 January 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission
IO C 111, 29.3.2016, p. 28–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 111/28 |
Action brought on 14 January 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission
(Case T-10/16)
(2016/C 111/33)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
declare the contested decisions to be void; and |
— |
order the defendant to bear all costs including the applicant’s cost |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decisions:
— |
of 2 December 2015 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293) on FP 7 Grant Agreements and letter dated 02 December 2015 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293) on FP 6 Grant Agreement regarding the defendant’s decision to proceed with the recovery further to the audit (RAIA000024) on FP7 closed grant agreements and the audit (RAIA000027) on FP6 contracts; |
— |
according to debit note No 3241514917 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293) ordering the applicant to pay a total of EUR 1 770 417,29 by 15 January 2016 to the defendant’s bank account; and |
— |
according to letters dated 16 December 2015 (ref. Ares (2015)5894346, ref. Ares (2015)5898040, ref. Ares (2015)5899627), 21 December 2015 (BUDG/DGA/C4/DB — 025798.4) and 14 January 2016 (BUDG/DGA/C4/DB — 025798.1) to offset each respective payment against the assumed debt of the applicant resulting from debit note No. 3241514917 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293). |
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are unlawful because all claimed costs fulfil the eligibility criterion stipulated in Article II.14.1 of the Grant Agreement. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions do not meet the applicable formal and procedural requirements and are vitiated by infringement of principles of good governance. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are vitiated on violations of the principle of proportionality. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the imposition of liquidated damages in the contested decisions are unlawful as well because no unjustified financial contributions were made to the applicant. |