EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/53

Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Amitié v EACEA

(Case T-59/15)

(2015/C 138/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amitié Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: D. Bogaert, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare admissible the application brought against EACEA;

— declare that the decision sent by EACEA dated 26 November 2014 is not legally grounded and, as consequence, order the immediate cancellation of all the measures adopted by EACEA against the applicant;

— declare that the debit note No 3241415195 of € 9 41 310,38 dated 12 December 2014 addressed by the EACEA to the applicant is not due;

— order the EACEA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Through this application, governed by Articles 256 and 272 TFUE, the applicant requests to the General Court to declare that EACEA’s decision of 26 November 2014 stating the measures adopted against AMITIE following the investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is not grounded.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the measures adopted against the applicant by EACEA are unjustified. — Non fulfilment of the conditions posted for the application of the measures: infringement of the provisions of Regulation No 2988/1995 (1) as well as of the principle of proportionality. — Infringement of the contractual provisions and wrongful application of the Regulations No 966/2012 (2) and No 1268/2012 (3). None of the measures (contained in EACEA decision dated 26 November, 2014), implemented against the applicant is legally grounded. On a subsidiary way, the recovery of all the amounts granted to the applicant would constitute an abuse of right and an unjust enrichment to the benefit of EACEA.

2. Second plea in law, alleging lack of validity of OLAF investigations and conclusions (infringement of the contractual provisions and applicable Regulations). — The investigations made by OLAF did not comply with the Regulation No 883/2013 (4) and/or with the general principles applicable to the matter. — As EACEA decision is based on OLAF conclusions further to its investigations, the absence of legality affecting OLAF investigations and report necessarily affects EACEA’s decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests

(2) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union

(4) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999