CELEX: 62018TN0108
Language: en
Date: 2018-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-108/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

14.5.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 166/32
            
         Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
   (Case T-108/18)
   (2018/C 166/42)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: University of Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Michel, lawyers)
   
      Defendants: European Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720-EACEA UKOLD of 21 December 2017;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 7 February 2018;
            
         
               —
            
            
               suspend the execution of the defendants’ notices with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 21 December 2017 and 7 February 2018 and the defendants’ Debit Note No 3241802552 of 13 February 2018 until the final conclusion of the proceedings for the annulment of the notices contested in this action; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendants to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing
               The applicant complains that a premature definitive decision was reached, despite it being known that, without fault of the applicant, it was objectively impossible on the date of the decision for the documents proving appropriate use of funds to be submitted. Further, the objective impossibility of the provision of further information and evidence — for which the applicant was not responsible — was only temporary in nature.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a misapplication of EU law
               Further, the notices for recovery infringe Article 5(4) TFEU and Article 135(4) of the Financial Regulation and the agreement between the parties, as the actual conditions for recovery are not known.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state adequate reasons for the recovery measures
               The recovery notices contain only superficial, general comments without discussions of specific cases and their content is therefore incomprehensible.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality
               The recovery of the entire amount can only be used as a measure of last resort in certain exceptional circumstances, which are not present in the instant case.