Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015TN0616

Case T-616/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Transtec v Commission

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016, p. 67–68 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/67


Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Transtec v Commission

(Case T-616/15)

(2016/C 027/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Transtec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the set-off decisions of the European Commission contained in its letters of 25 August, 27 August, 7 September, 16 September and 23 September 2015 by which it recovered the sum of EUR 624 388,73;

order the defendant to pay EUR 624 388,73 plus late payment interest on that sum, to be determined on the basis of the European Central Bank reference rate plus two percentage points;

order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage, set at the symbolic amount of EUR 1;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the contested decisions have no valid legal basis.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of unjust enrichment, in so far as the sum of EUR 607 096,08 plus interest was deducted from the applicant’s assets and increased the wealth of the Commission without any legal basis for that enrichment.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 42, 44, 45 and 47 of the Financial Regulation of 27 March 2003 applicable to the 9th European Development Fund, in so far as the Commission did not exercise the discretion conferred on it by those provisions, and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration, in so far as the Commission disregarded Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment.


Top