# C_2012243EN.01003202.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/32 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 22 June 2012 — FIS’D v Commission

(Case T-283/12)

2012/C 243/57

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design (Catanzaro, Italy) (represented by: S. Baratti and A. Sodano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| - | ----------------------------- |

| — | grant the requests for measures of organisation of procedure and/or for measures of inquiry; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| - | -------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the European Commission’s decision of 12 April 2012 (Ref. Ares (2012) 446225), which dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal lodged under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (‘the EACEA’) of 13 January 2012 (‘Termination of the Framework Partnership Agreement 2011-0181, Erasmus Mundus Masters Course in City Regeneration’) terminating early the Framework Partnership Agreement 2011-0181 concluded under the Erasmus Mundus programme 2009-2013.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of legal provisions in the form of a manifest error of assessment and failure to state adequate reasons:
—
The applicant submits that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA clearly infringed (i) Sections II.A.1 and II.B.4 of the Administrative and Financial Handbook — which forms an integral part of the Specific Grant Agreement annexed to the Framework Partnership Agreement — and (ii) Article II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, when the EACEA assessed the modified plan for the reCity Erasmus Mundus Master Course submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 on behalf of a consortium different from the original one. | — | The applicant submits that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA clearly infringed (i) Sections II.A.1 and II.B.4 of the Administrative and Financial Handbook — which forms an integral part of the Specific Grant Agreement annexed to the Framework Partnership Agreement — and (ii) Article II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, when the EACEA assessed the modified plan for the reCity Erasmus Mundus Master Course submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 on behalf of a consortium different from the original one. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant submits that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA clearly infringed (i) Sections II.A.1 and II.B.4 of the Administrative and Financial Handbook — which forms an integral part of the Specific Grant Agreement annexed to the Framework Partnership Agreement — and (ii) Article II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, when the EACEA assessed the modified plan for the reCity Erasmus Mundus Master Course submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 on behalf of a consortium different from the original one. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of legal provisions in the form of a manifest error of assessment:
—
In that connection, the applicant states that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA’s decision agreeing to the extension of the Specific Grant Agreement for funding the Masters Course underway — on the basis of the new plan submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 to be implemented by a consortium with a different membership from the original one — was vitiated by a manifest infringement of Articles I.3 and II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, misuse of powers and, in particular, distortion, failure to fulfil an essential precondition, illogical and inconsistent reasoning and failure to state adequate reasons. | — | In that connection, the applicant states that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA’s decision agreeing to the extension of the Specific Grant Agreement for funding the Masters Course underway — on the basis of the new plan submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 to be implemented by a consortium with a different membership from the original one — was vitiated by a manifest infringement of Articles I.3 and II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, misuse of powers and, in particular, distortion, failure to fulfil an essential precondition, illogical and inconsistent reasoning and failure to state adequate reasons. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | In that connection, the applicant states that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA’s decision agreeing to the extension of the Specific Grant Agreement for funding the Masters Course underway — on the basis of the new plan submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 to be implemented by a consortium with a different membership from the original one — was vitiated by a manifest infringement of Articles I.3 and II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, misuse of powers and, in particular, distortion, failure to fulfil an essential precondition, illogical and inconsistent reasoning and failure to state adequate reasons. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of legal provisions in the form of a manifest error of assessment and failure to state adequate reasons
—
On that point, the applicant states that the Commission failed to find that, in terminating the Framework Partnership Agreement and agreeing to the extension of the Specific Grant Agreement for a plan with a different structure and content from that which had been used in the call for proposals, the EACEA infringed and misapplied Annex I to the Framework Partnership Agreement, misused its powers and, in particular, distorted the evidence, failed to fulfil an essential precondition, employed inconsistent reasoning, and failed to observe the general principle of sound administration and the related principles of good faith, transparency, impartiality and proportionality, and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. | — | On that point, the applicant states that the Commission failed to find that, in terminating the Framework Partnership Agreement and agreeing to the extension of the Specific Grant Agreement for a plan with a different structure and content from that which had been used in the call for proposals, the EACEA infringed and misapplied Annex I to the Framework Partnership Agreement, misused its powers and, in particular, distorted the evidence, failed to fulfil an essential precondition, employed inconsistent reasoning, and failed to observe the general principle of sound administration and the related principles of good faith, transparency, impartiality and proportionality, and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | On that point, the applicant states that the Commission failed to find that, in terminating the Framework Partnership Agreement and agreeing to the extension of the Specific Grant Agreement for a plan with a different structure and content from that which had been used in the call for proposals, the EACEA infringed and misapplied Annex I to the Framework Partnership Agreement, misused its powers and, in particular, distorted the evidence, failed to fulfil an essential precondition, employed inconsistent reasoning, and failed to observe the general principle of sound administration and the related principles of good faith, transparency, impartiality and proportionality, and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. | | |

---