# C_2011355EN.01002802.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/28 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 11 October 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission

(Case T-546/11)

2011/C 355/51

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: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Accept the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Declare it admissible; |
| - | ---------------------- |

| — | Declare the action to be well-founded and annul the decision of 2 August 2011 of the Information Society and Media Directorate-General of the European Commission; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, is in two parts based on:
—
first, the lack and insufficiency of the statement of reasons, on the ground that the Commission does not state, for two of the four contracts concerned, the justification and evidence on which the contested decision is based for the conclusion that the eligible costs be adjusted; —
second, breach of the rights of the defence, on the ground that the Commission opposes Technion — Israel Institute of Technology being made aware of and commenting on the documents on which the decision is based. | — | first, the lack and insufficiency of the statement of reasons, on the ground that the Commission does not state, for two of the four contracts concerned, the justification and evidence on which the contested decision is based for the conclusion that the eligible costs be adjusted; | — | second, breach of the rights of the defence, on the ground that the Commission opposes Technion — Israel Institute of Technology being made aware of and commenting on the documents on which the decision is based. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | first, the lack and insufficiency of the statement of reasons, on the ground that the Commission does not state, for two of the four contracts concerned, the justification and evidence on which the contested decision is based for the conclusion that the eligible costs be adjusted; | | | | |
| — | second, breach of the rights of the defence, on the ground that the Commission opposes Technion — Israel Institute of Technology being made aware of and commenting on the documents on which the decision is based. | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment on the ground that the contested decision does not prove, on the basis of the evidence relied upon, that the services for which the Commission claims repayment were not actually performed. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectation and proportionality on the ground that the Commission:
—
adopted a decision adjusting the eligible costs although it had guaranteed the costs when the projects were put in place prior to the signature of the contracts and —
claimed an adjustment of the eligible costs in a sum exceeding the amount for which it claimed to adduce evidence. | — | adopted a decision adjusting the eligible costs although it had guaranteed the costs when the projects were put in place prior to the signature of the contracts and | — | claimed an adjustment of the eligible costs in a sum exceeding the amount for which it claimed to adduce evidence. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | adopted a decision adjusting the eligible costs although it had guaranteed the costs when the projects were put in place prior to the signature of the contracts and | | | | |
| — | claimed an adjustment of the eligible costs in a sum exceeding the amount for which it claimed to adduce evidence. | | | | |

---