CELEX: 62019TN0235
Language: en
Date: 2019-04-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-235/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — HIM v Commission

17.6.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 206/87
            
         
      Action brought on 4 April 2019 — HIM v Commission
      (Case T-235/19)
      (2019/C 206/76)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Health Investment Management (HIM) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by P. Zeegers, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Declare the present action admissible and well founded; and, accordingly,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Rule that the applicant is not liable to pay debit notes Nos 3241901815 (EUR 94 445.00) and 3241901886 (EUR 121 517.00) issued on 4 February 2019, and in so far as necessary, declare those debit notes invalid in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the costs and expenses, the amount of which is provisionally fixed at EUR 8 000.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging failure to disclose the final audit report and the fact that it was impossible for the applicant to put forward its point of view in full knowledge of the facts. The failure to disclose means that the debit notes issued by the Commission are not substantiated.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging failure on the part of the auditor and the Commission to comply with the rules determining eligible costs. The applicant disputes the position of the Commission which, by its decision, allegedly added a requirement which was not provided for in the legislation applicable to telework matters in particular. The Commission’s conduct was therefore inconsistent with that which it had itself adopted during previous audits involving the applicant.