Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2014:933
Date: 2014-11-06
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Education, vocational training and youth
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — FIS'D v Commission (Case T-283/12) 1 (Erasmus Mundus action programme — Framework partnership agreement — Specific grant agreement — EACEA decision to rescind the framework agreement and amend the specific agreement — Administrative appeal before the Commission — Commission decision dismissing the administrative appeal as unfounded — Infringement of the agreements and the administrative and financial manual) Language of the case: Italian Parties Applicant: FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design (Catanzaro, Italy) (represented by: initially, S. Bariatti and A. Sodano, then, F. Sutti and A. Boso Caretta, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, M. Van Hoof, then, C. Cattabriga and D. Roussanov and finally, C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents) Intervener in support of the defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent, M. Merola and C. Santacroce, lawyers) Re: Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 April 2012 (ref. Ares (2012) 446225) dismissing the administrative appeal against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of 13 January 2012 by which the latter rescinded early the framework partnership agreement 2011/0181 which it had concluded with the Università degli Studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria (Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Italy) and amended the specific grant agreement which it had concluded with that university Operative part of the judgment The Court: Dismisses the action; Orders FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission. Orders the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear its own costs. ____________ ____________ 1 OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.