CELEX: 62014TN0314
Language: en
Date: 2014-04-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-314/14: Action brought on 29 April 2014 — Borde and Carbonium v Commission

11.8.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 261/24
            
         Action brought on 29 April 2014 — Borde and Carbonium v Commission
   (Case T-314/14)
   2014/C 261/46
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Alexandre Borde (Paris, France) and Carbonium (Paris) (represented by: A. Herzberg, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul respondent’s decisions dated 19 and 20 February 2014 to terminate applicant No 1’s assignment in relation to the global GCCA and the Intra-ACP GCCA evaluation programmes;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order respondent to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, including the applicants’ right to be heard and the obligation to give reasons for decisions.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty on European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the defendant having violated the applicants’ rights to be treated in a fair, equitable and non-arbitrary manner and the applicants’ right to protection of their reputation.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the attacked decisions constitute a misuse of the defendant’s powers.