This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0657
Case T-657/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
Case T-657/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
Case T-657/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
SL C 73, 10.3.2012, p. 28–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 21/12/2011
- Date lodged:
- 21/12/2011
- Author:
- Opći sud
- Form:
- Pravosudna informacija
- Authentic language:
- francuski
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
10.3.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 73/28 |
Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
(Case T-657/11)
2012/C 73/56
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)
Defendant(s): European Commission
Form of order sought
|
— |
Admit the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
|
— |
Declare it admissible; |
|
— |
Principally, declare the action well founded and annul the decision of the DG ‘Information Society and Media’ of the European Commission of 19 October 2011; |
|
— |
Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and failure to state sufficient reasons, to the extent that the recovery order of 19 October 2011 is based exclusively on evidence, namely an audit report and decision of the Commission declaring certain costs ineligible on the basis of the conclusions of that audit report relating to the implementation, inter alia, of the MOSAICA contract, which are contested as regards their reasoning and whether they are well founded in Case T-546/11 Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission. (1) |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of unjust enrichment by the Commission. The applicants submit that:
|
