Case T-97/07: Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Imelios v Commission
Date: 2007-06-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU aid, European Anti-fraud Office, action for annulment (EU), audit, contract, fraud against the EU, information society, report

C 129/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2007

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Imelios v
Commission

(Case T-97/07)

(2007/C 129/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Imelios SA (Vélizi Villacoublay, France) (represented
by C. Curtil, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— In terms of procedure,

to declare that

the procedure
followed by OLAF and the Commission was not adversarial
in nature; that OLAF made use of anonymous sources, as
OLAF itself has accepted; that OLAF and the Commission
refused to communicate the enquiry report to the applicant;
that
the Commission's decision failed to state adequate
reasons, and accordingly, to annul the debit note.

— In the alternative, to declare that the documentary evidence
produced by the applicant was not taken into consideration;
that no examination was made into the liability of the …
group, and accordingly to annul the debit note as to its
substance.

— In any event, to declare that the final instalment of the grant
was not paid to the applicant, whereas the latter did not
waive its right to its payment in any way; accordingly, to
order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
EUR 34 368, together with interest from the date the action
was raised; to order the Commission to pay to the applicant
the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of damages; to order the
Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000
in respect of
to order the
the costs of
Commission to pay the costs.

the procedure;

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 21 December 1999, the applicant signed, together with the
European Community, represented by the European Commis-
sion, a contract IST-1999-10934 — ASSIST relating to the
‘Knowledge Management
for Help Desk Operators’ project,
which was entered into under the fifth framework programme
of the Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities (1998-2002),
in the field of user-
friendly information.

Following the enquiry carried out by OLAF and its audit report,
the Commission sent the debit note to the applicant, requiring
the repayment of the amount already paid by way of Com-
munity grant, pursuant to the relevant provision of the contract

allowing the Commission to require such a repayment in the
event of a finding of fraud or serious financial irregularities in
the implementation of the project. That decision represents the
contested decision in the present action. In addition, the appli-
cant requests the Court of First Instance to order the Commis-
sion to pay the final instalment of the grant and to order the
Commission to compensate it for the loss and damage it has
suffered by reason, first, of the non-payment of the final instal-
ment of the grant and, secondly, by reason of the procedures
initiated, initially by OLAF, and subsequently by the Commis-
sion.

In support of its application for annulment, the applicant alleges
an infringement of fundamental rights, in particular the right to
in the audit enquiry relating to the ASSIST
a fair hearing,
project carried out by OLAF. It claims that it was not in a posi-
tion to make relevant observations during the inquiry stage and
that OLAF's final report, on which the Commission's decision
was based, was not sent
from
to it,
replying to the accusations made against it.

thereby preventing it

In addition, the applicant claims that the decision failed to state
adequate reasons and that the objections were notified to it out
of time.

In the alternative, the applicant puts forward a number of pleas
in law relating to the substance of the contested decision, and
claims in particular that the Commission did not take into
account the documentary evidence put forward by the applicant
concerning expenditure incurred. In addition, it claims that it is
the LA POSTE group, which was the real beneficiary of the
grant, and not itself, which should be held liable for any irregu-
larities that may have occurred.

Action brought on 4 April 2007 — UPS Europe and UPS
Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-100/07)

(2007/C 129/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) and UPS
Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by:
T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities