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 62016TN0010

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.
Top