CELEX: 62017TN0357
Language: en
Date: 2017-06-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-357/17: Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Aide et Action France v Commission

14.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 269/28
            
         Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Aide et Action France v Commission
   (Case T-357/17)
   (2017/C 269/40)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Aide et Action France (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Le Mière, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the European Commission of 6 April 2017, as well as debit note No 3241607987 received on 8 August 2016, with all the legal consequences which that entails;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay Aide et Action France EUR 8 000 on the basis of Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.
            
         
      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 that the applicant has an interest in bringing proceedings and standing, since the decision of 6 April 2017 (‘the contested decision’) has legal effects as regards the applicant.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision contains an inadequate statement of reasons, in that:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that decision infringes Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           that decision does not contain any clear and unambiguous factual or legal elements;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission merely invokes contractual breaches, without referring to any contractual provision on the basis of which such breaches could be established, or on the basis of which the amount of the debt alleged could be determined;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           that decision is insufficiently reasoned even in the light of its context;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the investigations and the summary of the facts of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) did not enable the applicant to understand the scope of the measure taken against it.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, concerning the refusal of access to OLAF’s final report sent to the European Commission, in that:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the contested decision infringes Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           once the debit note had been issued and the decision to proceed with recovery by offsetting had been taken, the applicant should have had access to OLAF’s final report in order to exercise its rights of defence fully;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission should have agreed on the national conditions as regards the right of access to documents on which an unfavourable decision is based;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Grant Contract provided that investigation reports and evaluations of the Commission should be notified;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission could in any event have disclosed a document by redacting certain passages.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unfounded and, therefore, infringes the TFEU, in that:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the contested decision infringes Article 209 TFEU and its implementing Financial Regulations No 966/2012 of 25 October 2012 and No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the contested decision is not based on any claim which is certain, of a fixed amount and due;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           all of the funds received by the applicant were entirely used for the implementation of the programme for which the European funds had been granted, in accordance with Article 14 of Annex 2 to the Grant Contract.