CELEX: 62008TN0171
Language: en
Date: 2008-05-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-171/08: Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

5.7.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 171/43
            
         Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
   (Case T-171/08)
   (2008/C 171/82)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Claus, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 2007 in the form of the letter of 7 March 2008 confirming approval of a payment in the amount of EUR 9 215,20 in the context of the ‘Traumatised refugees in the EU’ project by reason of ‘Grant Agreement JAI/2004/ERF/073’ in so far as the applicant was denied payment of more than EUR 9 215,20;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In May 2005, the applicant and the Commission signed an agreement on support for a project in connection with the European Refugee Fund. By letter of 30 October 2007, confirmed by letter of 7 March 2008, the defendant sent the applicant a revised calculation of the payment to the applicant that was still outstanding, in which part of the applicant's costs were deemed to be ineligible for support. The applicant brought the present action against the Commission's letter of 7 March 2008.
   The applicant claims in support of its action that the contested decision infringes the duty to give reasons since the defendant changed the grounds for its decision on numerous occasions. In addition, there has been an infringement of the fundamental principle of the right to a fair hearing. Finally, the facts of the case were assessed in a manner incompatible with the regulations of the Grant Agreement and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.