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 62018TN0064

Case T-64/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Alfamicro v Commission

IO C 142, 23.4.2018, p. 52–53 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.4.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/52

Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Alfamicro v Commission

(Case T-64/18)

(2018/C 142/70)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistema de Computadores — Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

first, declare that Commission Decision (2017) 8839 final of 13 December 2017 on the recovery of a debt is null and void in so far as it relates to debit note No 3241507078 and, secondly, annul that decision as to the remainder;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

1.

With regard to the application for a declaration that the decision is null and void, the applicant relies on the Commission’s appropriation of the powers of the judiciary, in that it substituted the decision of the General Court of 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14, in which the Court set the European Union’s claim relating to a specific debt, with a different, enforceable, decision relating to that debt, in breach of Article 19 TEU and Article 272 TFEU;

2.

With regard to the application for annulment, the applicant relies on:

—

a failure to provide adequate reasons, in that the Commission merely stated that certain systemic errors were found in the checks made in the financial audit carried out in the agreement which is the subject of the contested decision, without, however, explaining what those errors are;

—

misuse of powers, in that, by automatically extending the conclusions of a financial audit carried out in the context of one contractual relationship to other contractual relationships, the Commission infringed the second paragraph of Article 135(5) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) and a fundamental principle of administrative contracts in general, and public contracts in particular, that is to say, the inviolability of the remuneration clause.

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

Top