CELEX: 62017TN0454
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-454/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — ‘Pro NGO!’ v Commission

2.10.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 330/11
            
         Action brought on 14 July 2017 — ‘Pro NGO!’ v Commission
   (Case T-454/17)
   (2017/C 330/13)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant:‘Pro NGO!’ (Non-Governmental-Organisations/Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen) e.V. (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Scheid, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Decision ARES (2017) 2484833 of 16 May 2017;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging incomplete assessment of the facts relevant for the determination of the case
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant complains that the defendant failed to take into account either the fact that the external auditor, Ernst & Young, belatedly corrected its original statement or the fact that the Project Coordinator declared that she had submitted the documents herself.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the facts of the case contradicts other reports
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           Further, the applicant claims that the defendant erred in its assessment of whether the applicant had complied with its contractual obligations, which contradicts the statements contained in the Final Audit Report and the OLAF Report.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           Lastly, the applicant submits that it was only several years after the proceedings had been brought that it was granted access to crucial documents, which, it maintains, had been partially redacted.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant also maintains that it had no legal obligation to tender or to observe strictly the tendering rules in the project.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           In addition, the applicant asserts that it bears no liability for the actions of the European Union’s project partner.