# C_2015279EN.01003902.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/39

---

Action brought on 9 June 2015 — KV v EACEA

(Case T-306/15)

(2015/C 279/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KV (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision EACEA/MH/mvh/OKRAPF15D006233 of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), dated 10 April 2014, on the financing of the agreement 518072-LLP-1-2011-1-DE-COMENIUS-CNW/2011-3848 with regard to the NEST — ‘Network for Staff and Teachers in Childcare Services’ Project; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision EACEA/MH/mvh/OKRAPF15D006233 of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), dated 10 April 2014, on the financing of the agreement 518072-LLP-1-2011-1-DE-COMENIUS-CNW/2011-3848 with regard to the NEST — ‘Network for Staff and Teachers in Childcare Services’ Project;

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicants in the current proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicants in the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a first manifest error of assessment.






  — | The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment when distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the Agency manifestly disregarded the nature of the services provided by the partners, the clear will of the applicant’s general assembly to address and regulate such services as it considered them to constitute a distinct category that was not falling under the provisions of the Statutes, and the fact that the services provided by the partners in the project in question met all the requirements of the aforementioned decision of the general assembly. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a first manifest error of assessment.

—

The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment when distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the Agency manifestly disregarded the nature of the services provided by the partners, the clear will of the applicant’s general assembly to address and regulate such services as it considered them to constitute a distinct category that was not falling under the provisions of the Statutes, and the fact that the services provided by the partners in the project in question met all the requirements of the aforementioned decision of the general assembly.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a second manifest error of assessment






  — | The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as regards the reasoning of the decision relating to the link of subordination between the partners/shareholders and the applicant, the existence of which was clearly established in the evidence submitted to the Agency. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a second manifest error of assessment

—

The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as regards the reasoning of the decision relating to the link of subordination between the partners/shareholders and the applicant, the existence of which was clearly established in the evidence submitted to the Agency.

---