# C_2013178EN.01001701.xml

| 22.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/17 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 7 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-256/13)

2013/C 178/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato, and by G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the letter of 22 February 2013 from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture (Commission ref.: Ares(2013) 237719) concerning ‘Agreement No: ADEC 2007-0266 — Reimbursement — review after appeal’, sent on 25 February 2013 and received by the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani (National Youth Agency) on 6 March 2013 (Agenzia ref.: ANG/2741/AMS), requesting the reimbursement of sums totalling EUR 1 486 485,90, insofar as it seeks reimbursement of EUR 52 036,24 and EUR 183 729,70, together with the letter of 28 February 2013 from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture (Commission ref.: Ares(2013) 267064) addressed to the Head of the Youth and National Civilian Service Department, Prime Minister’s Office, communicating the ‘Final evaluation conclusions’ from the ‘2011 Declaration of assurance’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the Commission’s request for reimbursement of various sums totalling EUR 1 486 485,90, a figure which includes sums in the amount of EUR 52 036,24, relating to expenses incurred by the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani for training and assessing EVS (European Voluntary Service) volunteers in connection with the Youth in Action Programme during 2007 which have been considered ineligible, and of EUR 183 729,70, relating to sums not yet recovered by the Agenzia following requests for reimbursement addressed to beneficiaries of that programme from 2000 to 2004 inclusive.

In support of its action, the Italian Republic relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the combined provisions of Article 3.2.1 and of the last paragraph of Article 5.2.2 of ‘Grant Agreement No 2007 — 0266/001 — 001 for the operational implementation of the Youth in Action Programme’ between the European Commission and the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani.
—
In this regard, the applicant claims that, although the upper limit per capita for each trainee has indeed been exceeded (for organisational reasons and due to time constraints), it does not appear to be either reasonable or in line with the objective pursued by Decision No 1719/2006/EC of developing cooperation within the European Union in the field of youth to request reimbursement of funds which have in fact been used for purposes which are in line with ‘Grant Agreement No 2007 — 0266/001 — 001’. | — | In this regard, the applicant claims that, although the upper limit per capita for each trainee has indeed been exceeded (for organisational reasons and due to time constraints), it does not appear to be either reasonable or in line with the objective pursued by Decision No 1719/2006/EC of developing cooperation within the European Union in the field of youth to request reimbursement of funds which have in fact been used for purposes which are in line with ‘Grant Agreement No 2007 — 0266/001 — 001’. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | In this regard, the applicant claims that, although the upper limit per capita for each trainee has indeed been exceeded (for organisational reasons and due to time constraints), it does not appear to be either reasonable or in line with the objective pursued by Decision No 1719/2006/EC of developing cooperation within the European Union in the field of youth to request reimbursement of funds which have in fact been used for purposes which are in line with ‘Grant Agreement No 2007 — 0266/001 — 001’. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 10.2 of Annex II.1 to Agreement No 2003 — 1805/001 — 001 between the European Commission and the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani.
—
In this regard, the applicant claims that the Italian authorities have in practice followed every possible procedure for recovering the sums in question. Furthermore, the Commission has not provided an adequate statement of reasons for its manifestly unequal treatment of two identical situations, namely, the situation relating to the sums to be recovered for the years 2000-2004, in respect of which permission to waive recovery has been denied, and the situation relating to the sums to be recovered for the years 2005 and 2006, in respect of which such permission has been granted. | — | In this regard, the applicant claims that the Italian authorities have in practice followed every possible procedure for recovering the sums in question. Furthermore, the Commission has not provided an adequate statement of reasons for its manifestly unequal treatment of two identical situations, namely, the situation relating to the sums to be recovered for the years 2000-2004, in respect of which permission to waive recovery has been denied, and the situation relating to the sums to be recovered for the years 2005 and 2006, in respect of which such permission has been granted. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | In this regard, the applicant claims that the Italian authorities have in practice followed every possible procedure for recovering the sums in question. Furthermore, the Commission has not provided an adequate statement of reasons for its manifestly unequal treatment of two identical situations, namely, the situation relating to the sums to be recovered for the years 2000-2004, in respect of which permission to waive recovery has been denied, and the situation relating to the sums to be recovered for the years 2005 and 2006, in respect of which such permission has been granted. | | |

---