Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/49 |

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Willemsen v Commission

(Case T-174/23)

(2023/C 216/64)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Merel Johanna Willemsen (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Geelkerken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 14 December 2021 concerning the recovery of a claim registered under debit note No 4840200003 (‘the contested decision’) and declare that the applicant owes nothing to the Commission; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision and declare that the applicant — after the settlement of their mutual claims — owes nothing to the Commission; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the further alternative, annul the contested decision and to the extent that the applicant still owes an amount to the Commission thereafter, limit that amount to zero; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the even further alternative, annul the contested decision and to the extent that the applicant still owes an amount to the Commission thereafter, moderate that amount in a reasonable manner; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | First plea in law: the termination of the applicant’s participation in the research project for which the Commission had signed a grant agreement, and the fact that the applicant could not deliver and complete the agreed work, are the result of the actions of the Project Officer and the coordinator and are not attributable to the applicant herself. Given that is within the Commission’s sphere of control that the applicant has had to withdraw and in view of the course of events during the project, the applicant owes nothing to the Commission. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Second plea in law: the errors committed by the Project Officer and the coordinator and procedural irregularities are so serious that nothing can be claimed from the applicant. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Third plea in law: on account of the withholding of the applicant’s research results and material she has suffered harm, such that nothing can be claimed from her. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | Fourth plea in law: the course of events throughout the entire implementation of the project, both the unacceptable attitude of those in charge towards the applicant mean that no claim can be made against her. There is a situation of ‘force majeure’ and the applicant’s personal circumstances, too, should be a reason for the Commission to waive recovery from the applicant. |

---

[Top](#document1)