# C_2015371EN.01002501.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/25 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 20 August 2015 — KV/EACEA

(Case T-484/15)

(2015/C 371/28)

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 the decision EACEA/MH/OG/OKRAPF15D013150 of the Head of Unit of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency on the financing of Agreement No 519177-LLP-1-2011-1-GR-KA3-KA3NW with regard to the project ‘Facilitating and fostering digital competence through volunteers’ project’; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of the 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 manifest error of assessment
—
The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the EACEA 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. | — | The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the EACEA 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. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the EACEA 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 EACEA. | — | 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 EACEA. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | 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 EACEA. | | |

---