CELEX: 62011TN0029
Language: en
Date: 2011-01-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-29/11: Action brought on 14 January 2011 — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission

12.3.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 80/23
            
         Action brought on 14 January 2011 — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission
   (Case T-29/11)
   2011/C 80/46
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Technische Universität Dresden (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Commission of 4 November 2010, debit note No 3241011712, concerning the repayment of a sum in the amount of EUR 55 377,62;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:
   
               1.
            
            
               Infringement of Community law due to an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts
               The applicant submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts as regards the eligibility of certain personnel expenses, subsistence expenses and travel costs. It also submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts in connection with various services.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Infringement of Community law due to serious errors of reasoning
               The applicant submits in this connection that there is a failure to state reasons in the debit note, erroneous reasoning as regards the granting and withdrawal of subsistence expenses and travel costs and a failure to state the reasons for the increase in the ineligible sum regarding the category of ‘various services’.