CELEX: 62020TN0381
Language: en
Date: 2020-06-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-381/20: Action brought on 20 June 2020 — Datax v REA

7.9.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 297/39
            
         
      Action brought on 20 June 2020 — Datax v REA
      (Case T-381/20)
      (2020/C 297/52)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Datax sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Bober, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Research Executive Agency
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision taken on 13 November 2019 (ARES 2019 7018535 — 13/11/2019) that refers to partial rejection of eligible costs and recovery of the EU contribution and that requires the applicant to pay liquidated damages;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Research Executive Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings including costs of professional representation before the Court incurred by the applicant.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging errors as to the established factual findings and violation of Polish labour law.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging violation of the underlying principles of European Union law, in particular the rule of law.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging lack of irregularities by the applicant.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of application of principle of proportionality.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging an erroneous claim of breach by the applicant of grant agreements.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, a subsidiary plea, alleging that the contested decision was erroneously issued by the REA, an executive agency of the European Union, instead of the European Commission.
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  Seventh plea in law, a further subsidiary plea, alleging a violation of the law of the Kingdom of Belgium.
               
            
                  8.
               
               
                  Eighth plea in law, also a subsidiary plea, alleging that the defendant’s financial claims are time barred.