CELEX: 62020TN0475
Language: en
Date: 2020-08-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-475/20: Action brought on 9 August 2020 — LE v Commission

30.11.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 414/36
            
         
      Action brought on 9 August 2020 — LE v Commission
      (Case T-475/20)
      (2020/C 414/57)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: LE (represented by: M. Straus, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the Commission C(2020) 3988 final, of 9 June 2020, and the decision and debit notes in relation thereto and its execution and implementation by the Commission and possible authorised bodies pursuant to Article 299 TFEU;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  ruling or take such other measures as the General Court shall deem just and appropriate; and,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings including the lawyer’s fees.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following grounds.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Lapse of time and non-assessment of relevant facts:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the Commission took more than 5 years without full transparency on the reviews and its refusal to allow the applicant to submit additional requests and/or to comply with its requests for information and motivation. The reporting done by the Commission was incomplete, not accurate and not in compliance with the legislation of the evaluation, review and control of subsidies.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Equal treatment and transparency:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the termination of the agreement lacked any valid ground, and the fact that the any termination was not foreseen in the agreement, was ignored by the Commission.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Principles of good governance:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the Commission did not act according to the principles of good governance i.e. the responsible conduct of public affairs and management of public resources.
                           
                        
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Lack of sufficient motivation and equal treatment:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the decision and the decision in relation thereto lack a solid and accurate motivation and lack transparency and openness. Actions were next thereto performed against the principle of equal treatment.
                           
                        
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Principle of good administration:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the Commission has limited itself to refer constantly to its previous decisions which were equally unmotivated and not based upon the principle of good administration and other principles referred to. So, this does not sufficiently comply with the principles of decision making.
                           
                        
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Lack of information:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the applicant did not receive any reports and reviews, including a full copy of the audit reports, so that it has not been enabled to review and assess the calculations, findings and motivation made.