# C_2015337EN.01002001.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/20 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 14 July 2015 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-381/15)

(2015/C 337/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 8 May 2015 strengthening audit and monitoring measures, issuing a verification warning in accordance with the Commission decision of 13 November 2014 on the early warning system to be used by authorising officers of the Commission and by the executive agencies, and denying IMG the status of an international organisation under the Financial Regulation; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to pay for the material and non-material damage incurred; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| - | ----------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law concerning different aspects of the contested decision.

| — | Regarding the contested decision as a whole
1.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter and the right to a fair hearing. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. | 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter and the right to a fair hearing. | 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter and the right to a fair hearing. | | | | |
| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. | | | | |

| — | Regarding the decision denying the applicant the status of an international organisation within the meaning of the Financial Regulation
3.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012( 1 ) and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012( 2 ) and a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission decided that the applicant no longer qualified as an international organisation within the meaning of the abovementioned regulations. 4.
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. 5.
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty in so far as the Commission does not explain (i) why it considers that the applicant no longer satisfies the requirements of the definition of an international organisation or (ii) the substantial change in its interpretation and application of the Financial Regulation in regard to a factual and legal situation (that of the applicant) which has remained unchanged. 6.
Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations in so far as the applicant’s status as an international organisation was revoked abruptly and without a transitional period. | 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012( 1 ) and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012( 2 ) and a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission decided that the applicant no longer qualified as an international organisation within the meaning of the abovementioned regulations. | 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. | 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty in so far as the Commission does not explain (i) why it considers that the applicant no longer satisfies the requirements of the definition of an international organisation or (ii) the substantial change in its interpretation and application of the Financial Regulation in regard to a factual and legal situation (that of the applicant) which has remained unchanged. | 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations in so far as the applicant’s status as an international organisation was revoked abruptly and without a transitional period. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012( 1 ) and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012( 2 ) and a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission decided that the applicant no longer qualified as an international organisation within the meaning of the abovementioned regulations. | | | | | | | | |
| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. | | | | | | | | |
| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty in so far as the Commission does not explain (i) why it considers that the applicant no longer satisfies the requirements of the definition of an international organisation or (ii) the substantial change in its interpretation and application of the Financial Regulation in regard to a factual and legal situation (that of the applicant) which has remained unchanged. | | | | | | | | |
| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations in so far as the applicant’s status as an international organisation was revoked abruptly and without a transitional period. | | | | | | | | |

| — | Regarding the decision to issue a verification warning in the context of the early warning system (EWS)
7.
Seventh plea in law, alleging illegality of Decision 2014/792/EU( 3 ) in so far as there is no legal basis for its adoption. 8.
Eighth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter, of the right to a fair hearing and of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment. | 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging illegality of Decision 2014/792/EU( 3 ) in so far as there is no legal basis for its adoption. | 8. | Eighth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter, of the right to a fair hearing and of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging illegality of Decision 2014/792/EU( 3 ) in so far as there is no legal basis for its adoption. | | | | |
| 8. | Eighth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter, of the right to a fair hearing and of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment. | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

( 2 )  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

( 3 )  Commission Decision 2014/792/EU of 13 November 2014 on the early warning system to be used by authorising officers of the Commission and by the executive agencies (OJ 2014 L 329, p. 68).

---