# C_2009006EN.01004001.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/40

---

Action brought on 5 November 2008 — Alisei v Commission

(Case T-481/08)

(2009/C 6/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alisei NGO (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, S. Gobbato, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of Commission Decision D (2007) 8449 of 19 August 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of Commission Decision D (2007) 8449 of 19 August 2008;

| — | Order the Commission to compensate for the loss suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to compensate for the loss suffered;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a non-governmental organisation active in the field of international cooperation for development and humanitarian assistance, challenges the Commission's decision confirming that the procedure initiated in June 2006, concerning the accounting verification of a selection of contracts concluded with the applicant, was in order. The Commission had also provided the applicant with the final report from Ernst & Young, informing it that that report was a reliable technical basis for taking the necessary measures, in particular the launching of a recovery procedure for a total amount of EUR 4 750 121.

The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of its action:

| — | infringement of the principle of sound administration and diligence in administrative action, in that the applicant was subjected to an administrative procedure the nature and rules for implementation of which were quite specific, only to discover subsequently that that procedure in reality had a purpose and was conducted in a manner quite different from what had been communicated to it. In particular, the defendant decided, first of all, to initiate an accounting verification procedure to be carried out through an audit, before accepting the findings obtained through a different verification procedure, a ‘amicable procedure’, of which the applicant was never informed. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of sound administration and diligence in administrative action, in that the applicant was subjected to an administrative procedure the nature and rules for implementation of which were quite specific, only to discover subsequently that that procedure in reality had a purpose and was conducted in a manner quite different from what had been communicated to it. In particular, the defendant decided, first of all, to initiate an accounting verification procedure to be carried out through an audit, before accepting the findings obtained through a different verification procedure, a ‘amicable procedure’, of which the applicant was never informed.

| — | infringement of the provisions governing limitations, in that the decision orders, without distinction, the recovery of amounts which should not have been claimed because the defendant's right to demand repayment of those amounts had been extinguished. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the provisions governing limitations, in that the decision orders, without distinction, the recovery of amounts which should not have been claimed because the defendant's right to demand repayment of those amounts had been extinguished.

The applicant also alleges infringement of its rights of defence, and of the principle of proportionality.

Lastly, it asks that the Commission be ordered to compensate for the loss suffered.

---