CELEX: 62015TN0206
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-206/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Intercon v Commission

6.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 221/24
            
         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Intercon v Commission
   (Case T-206/15)
   (2015/C 221/33)
   Language of the case: Polish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Intercon Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: B. Eger, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant submits that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare that the funds which the European Commission paid to the applicant in respect of its participation in the project covered by Agreement VPH2-224635 constitute eligible expenditure in accordance with Article II.14 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Agreement and that the applicant is for that reason not obliged to repay them;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               set aside the implementation of the contested decision.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of its action the applicant puts forward one plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of mutual goodwill on the part of contracting parties and infringement of the principle that undertakings must place their trust in the Commission.
   
               —
            
            
               The Commission, the applicant submits, failed to take any account of the observations and documents submitted by the beneficiary by letter of 14 August 2014. In this connection, the Commission invoked Article 22.II.5 of Annex II to the Agreement, under which it is entitled not to take account of statements and evidence submitted out of time. However, in view of the fact that the Commission had itself requested the beneficiary to restate its observations, such a course of action was improper. In that situation, the fact that the new evidence and observations were disregarded in their entirety constitutes a manifest infringement of the principle of mutual goodwill on the part of contracting parties and of the principle that undertakings must place their trust in the Commission.