This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0051
Case T-51/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — AECOPS v Commission
Case T-51/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — AECOPS v Commission
Case T-51/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — AECOPS v Commission
SL C 139, 7.5.2011, p. 19–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
7.5.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 139/19 |
Action brought on 24 January 2011 — AECOPS v Commission
(Case T-51/11)
2011/C 139/37
Language of the case: Portuguese
Parties
Applicant: AECOPS — Associação de Empresas de Construção, Obras Públicas e Serviços (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul, in accordance with and for the purpose of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 relating to file No 88 0369 P1, reducing to PTE 37 056 405 the amount of the assistance granted by Commission Decision C(88) 831 of 29 April 1988 and. at the same time, requiring reimbursement of the amount of EUR 294 298,41; |
— |
order the European Commission to pay both its own costs and those of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging failure to observe a reasonable time-limit within which to take the decision, as a result of which:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons: the applicant argues that the contested decision does not satisfy the obligation to state reasons imposed by Article 296 TFEU. The contested decision does not explain, even summarily, what reasons led to the reduction of the financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund, nor does the letter of the European Social Fund Management Institute notifying the applicant of the contested decision explain, in an even remotely comprehensible manner, the reasons prompting the reduction of that assistance or which expenditure was, and which was not, eligible. In the applicant’s view, the defect of want of reasoning must lead the Court to annul the contested decision. |