# C_2014388EN.01002101.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/21

---

Action brought on 30 August 2014 — ADR Center v Commission

(Case T-644/14)

2014/C 388/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ADR Center Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Tantalo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision set out in its letter of 27 June 2014 for a recovery action against ADR Center; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision set out in its letter of 27 June 2014 for a recovery action against ADR Center;

| — | order the immediate payment of the balance due to ADR Center of 79  700,40 EUR, per the pro forma invoice and credit notes issued November 13, 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the immediate payment of the balance due to ADR Center of 79  700,40 EUR, per the pro forma invoice and credit notes issued November 13, 2013;

| — | order the immediate payment of damages suffered by ADR Center to its international reputation, and for the time devoted by its senior staff to defend a groundless claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the immediate payment of damages suffered by ADR Center to its international reputation, and for the time devoted by its senior staff to defend a groundless claim;

| — | order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicants legal costs and expenses for this procedure in an amount to be determined equitably by the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicants legal costs and expenses for this procedure in an amount to be determined equitably by the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the audit actions and the ensuing orders by the Commission are based on a set of rules that were never agreed upon. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the audit actions and the ensuing orders by the Commission are based on a set of rules that were never agreed upon.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission unreasonably delayed its issuance of the final audit reports and accompanying recovery orders. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission unreasonably delayed its issuance of the final audit reports and accompanying recovery orders.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to meet its burden of proof. The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission has based its final financial audit and the ensuing recovery orders on unsubstantiated findings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to meet its burden of proof. The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission has based its final financial audit and the ensuing recovery orders on unsubstantiated findings.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the findings of the Commission’s audit were erroneous. The applicant claims in that regard that findings of the Commission’s audit are contested based upon a number of manifest errors, procedural and substantive. The applicant also claims that the Commission has not only failed to review the very orders it has issued, the Commission has also blatantly ignored and failed to consider any and all issues that were raised by ADR Center. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the findings of the Commission’s audit were erroneous. The applicant claims in that regard that findings of the Commission’s audit are contested based upon a number of manifest errors, procedural and substantive. The applicant also claims that the Commission has not only failed to review the very orders it has issued, the Commission has also blatantly ignored and failed to consider any and all issues that were raised by ADR Center.

---