CELEX: 62018TN0602
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-602/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission

3.12.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 436/60
            
         
      Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission
      (Case T-602/18)
      (2018/C 436/84)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Enguera (Enguera, Spain) (represented by: J. Palau Navarro, J. Ortiz Ballester and V. Soriano i Piqueras, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the General Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Annul the decision of 26 July 2018 of the Head of Unit, ‘ENV.D.4 — Life Programme’, of Directorate ‘ENV.D Natural Capital’ of the Directorate-General Environment of the European Commission, under the subject matter ‘LIFE 10 ENV/ES/000458 — ECOGLAUGA ÉRGON — Confirmation of recovery order’.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, on account of the failure to state reasons in the contested decision.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging the inaccuracy of the reasons stated, if it is found that there is implicit reasoning.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration, provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken, has been disregarded. In the present case, neither were the applicant’s written submissions taken into account in any way, nor was it invited to submit arguments prior to the adoption of the final decision;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The applicant’s requests to access the file in its entirety have been ignored;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              Although the applicant has at all times corresponded with the defendant in Spanish, the Commission has issued all of its communications and decisions in English.
                           
                        
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition of arbitrariness on the part of public authorities, inasmuch as the contested decision fails to apply the appropriate scientific norms or criteria, but instead applies a mere subjective criterion reducing or cancelling, without justification, all financial participation by the European Union in an approved project.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the Commission, in adopting its decision, departed from its previous decisions, in which it fully confirmed its agreement with the activities developed by the applicant, with the result that the applicant was subject to a sudden and incomprehensible decision could not have been anticipated on the basis of the Commission’s previous behaviour.