# C_2015155EN.01002802.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/28

---

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission

(Case T-82/15)

(2015/C 155/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: InAccess Networks Integrated Systems — Applications Services for Telecommunication and Related Equipment Commercial and Industrial Co. SA (Amarousio, Greece) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler and G. Pandey, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the following acts, to the extent that the Court finds that the acts produce legal effects and to the extent that these acts refuse the eligibility of claims made by the applicant under the Grant Agreement with the reference number project 216837 ATRACO, concluded within the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration services (2007-2013), and purport to impose on the applicant an obligation to repay funds received and to pay liquidated damages:






  — | Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 with reference number ARES (2014) 4162021; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the following acts, to the extent that the Court finds that the acts produce legal effects and to the extent that these acts refuse the eligibility of claims made by the applicant under the Grant Agreement with the reference number project 216837 ATRACO, concluded within the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration services (2007-2013), and purport to impose on the applicant an obligation to repay funds received and to pay liquidated damages:

—

Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 with reference number ARES (2014) 4162021;

| — | Commission decision contained in the debit note of 23 October 2012 with the reference number ARES (2012) 1248814; |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission decision contained in the debit note of 23 October 2012 with the reference number ARES (2012) 1248814;

| — | Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 without a reference number; |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 without a reference number;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

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 a violation of article 41.1-2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to be heard
  The applicant puts forward that the Commission has acknowledged that the original audit procedure entailed a violation of its right to be heard, and that on this basis, the Commission decided to re-open the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of article 41.1-2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to be heard

The applicant puts forward that the Commission has acknowledged that the original audit procedure entailed a violation of its right to be heard, and that on this basis, the Commission decided to re-open the case.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and a violation of the applicant’s legitimate expectations
  The applicant puts forward that the decision to reopen the audit procedure entailed a legitimate expectation that any new decision would be based on facts relating to the substance of the audit, and not on procedural rules that would have applied to the submission of documentation in the original audit procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and a violation of the applicant’s legitimate expectations

The applicant puts forward that the decision to reopen the audit procedure entailed a legitimate expectation that any new decision would be based on facts relating to the substance of the audit, and not on procedural rules that would have applied to the submission of documentation in the original audit procedure.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.2.c of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by giving an insufficient statement of reasons
  The applicant puts forward that the statement of reasons given by the Commission in its review decision was insufficient as it only concerned one of two contested issues and as it only in a superficial manner referred to the submitted documentation as being insufficient. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.2.c of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by giving an insufficient statement of reasons

The applicant puts forward that the statement of reasons given by the Commission in its review decision was insufficient as it only concerned one of two contested issues and as it only in a superficial manner referred to the submitted documentation as being insufficient.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment
  Finally, the applicant puts forward that in the absence of any documentation as to the outcome of the re-opened audit procedure and therefore also the opportunity for the applicant to present its case before a revised decision was taken, the review decision of the Commission, and in consequence the original audit decision must be regarded as expressions of a manifest error of assessment and as adopted in violation of the applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

Finally, the applicant puts forward that in the absence of any documentation as to the outcome of the re-opened audit procedure and therefore also the opportunity for the applicant to present its case before a revised decision was taken, the review decision of the Commission, and in consequence the original audit decision must be regarded as expressions of a manifest error of assessment and as adopted in violation of the applicant’s right to be heard.

---