# C_2014380EN.01001602.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/16 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 25 August 2014 — Intercon v Commission

(Case T-632/14)

2014/C 380/22

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Intercon Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: B. Eger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | hold that, by issuing an order for repayment of the amount of EUR 2 58  479,21, the Commission has breached the provisions of Grant Agreement No ARTreat — 224297 under the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7); |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law:
—
exceeding of the limits of the scope of examination by reason of the audit which was carried out and the consequent impermissible evaluation of the results of that audit. | — | exceeding of the limits of the scope of examination by reason of the audit which was carried out and the consequent impermissible evaluation of the results of that audit. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | exceeding of the limits of the scope of examination by reason of the audit which was carried out and the consequent impermissible evaluation of the results of that audit. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law:
—
failure to take into account the Form C signed by the beneficiary, although the Commission had requested that this be submitted, and failure to take account of evidence in the form of a declaration of an employee that it was not possible to obtain the documents from the coordinator of the consortium. | — | failure to take into account the Form C signed by the beneficiary, although the Commission had requested that this be submitted, and failure to take account of evidence in the form of a declaration of an employee that it was not possible to obtain the documents from the coordinator of the consortium. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | failure to take into account the Form C signed by the beneficiary, although the Commission had requested that this be submitted, and failure to take account of evidence in the form of a declaration of an employee that it was not possible to obtain the documents from the coordinator of the consortium. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law:
—
Failure to take into account new comments and clarifications by reference to Article II.22.5 of the annex to the agreement, even though the Commission had requested the beneficiary to submit these and had imposed a time-limit for that purpose. | — | Failure to take into account new comments and clarifications by reference to Article II.22.5 of the annex to the agreement, even though the Commission had requested the beneficiary to submit these and had imposed a time-limit for that purpose. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Failure to take into account new comments and clarifications by reference to Article II.22.5 of the annex to the agreement, even though the Commission had requested the beneficiary to submit these and had imposed a time-limit for that purpose. | | |

---