CELEX: C2000/233/61
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-149/00: Action brought on 2 June 2000 by Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (Innova) against the Commission of the European Communities

12.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/33
Action brought on 2 June 2000 by Centro Euromediterra-                  Pleas in law and principal arguments
neo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (Innova) against the
        Commission of the European Communities                          By the contested decision, the Commission terminated the
                                                                        subsidy contract concluded with the applicant concerning
                                                                        a project within the framework of the Euromed Heritage
                        (Case T-149/00)                                 programme for the promotion of cultural tourism. The
                                                                        Commission had found that there had been chronic failure to
                       (2000/C 233/61)                                  comply with the contractual obligations and that the applicant
                                                                        had been unable promptly to take the necessary rectification
                                                                        measures. Although the contract in issue contains a clause
                                                                        conferring jurisdiction on the Belgian courts, the applicant has
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        thought it preferable to bring the present action before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance, on the ground that the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               had failed to provide any precision indication as to the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              competent court before which the decision in issue could be
European Communities on 2 June 2000 by Centro Euromedi-                 contested.
terraneo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (Innova), a non-profit-
making association established at Calatafimi Segesta (Italy),           In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
represented by Denis Fosselard, of the Brussels Bar.                    —     misuse of powers, in that the contested decision was
                                                                              adopted by a head of unit without any express delegation
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   of powers by the college of Commissioners;
                                                                        —     non-observance of fundamental principles and failure to
—    primarily, annul the Commission’s decision to terminate                  respect the rights of the defence, in that the Commission
     the subsidy contract relating to the DIONYSOS project,                   unlawfully refrained from hearing the applicant’s views
     dated 23 March 2000;                                                     before adopting the contested decision;
—    alternatively, annul the said decision of the Commission           —     failure to observe the principle of proportionality, in that
     in so far as it requires the applicant to repay all of                   the termination of the contract was a disproportionate
     the sums already paid over, including those already                      measure since most of the reasons invoked were due to
     legitimately used by the applicant in order to implement                 external causes beyond the control of the applicant;
     the project;                                                       —     absence of a proper statement of reasons, in that the
                                                                              contested decision partly contradicted a previous audit
—    order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                report.