# C_2010209EN.01005101.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/51

---

Action brought on 28 May 2010 — Cross Czech v Commission

(Case T-252/10)

()

2010/C 209/76

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cross Czech a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Schollaert, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision No INFSO-02/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676 of 12 March 2010; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision No INFSO-02/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676 of 12 March 2010; and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Decision No INFSO-02/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676 of 12 March 2010, reference No 09-BA74-006, a letter confirming the findings of audit report B74-06 concerning the audit of the financial statements for the period from 1 February 2005 until 30 April 2008 for the projects eMapps.com, CEEC IST NET and TRANSFER EAST, concluded in the framework of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006).

th

In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

The applicant contends that the contested decision constitutes an infringement of the Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, as it:

| — | is based on incorrect and insufficient fact finding by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

is based on incorrect and insufficient fact finding by the Commission;

| — | reflects the incorrect application of the contracts relating to the projects in question, in particular in respect of the finding that the applicant committed a breach of these contracts; |
| --- | --- |

—

reflects the incorrect application of the contracts relating to the projects in question, in particular in respect of the finding that the applicant committed a breach of these contracts;

| — | is based on manifest errors of assessment of the facts relating to the alleged breach of the contracts relating to these projects, resulting in a failure to comply with the necessary legal standards and thus in an error of law; |
| --- | --- |

—

is based on manifest errors of assessment of the facts relating to the alleged breach of the contracts relating to these projects, resulting in a failure to comply with the necessary legal standards and thus in an error of law;

| — | is based on defects of reasoning; and |
| --- | --- |

—

is based on defects of reasoning; and

| — | constitutes a breach of the applicant’s procedural rights in the procedure preceding the issuing of the contested decision and a breach of the principle of due care. |
| --- | --- |

—

constitutes a breach of the applicant’s procedural rights in the procedure preceding the issuing of the contested decision and a breach of the principle of due care.

---