CELEX: C2007/129/28
Language: en
Date: 2007-06-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-97/07: Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Imelios v Commission

9.6.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 129/16
            
         Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Imelios v Commission
   (Case T-97/07)
   (2007/C 129/28)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Imelios SA (Vélizi Villacoublay, France) (represented by C. Curtil, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               In terms of procedure, to declare that the procedure followed by OLAF and the Commission was not adversarial in nature; that OLAF made use of anonymous sources, as OLAF itself has accepted; that OLAF and the Commission refused to communicate the enquiry report to the applicant; that the Commission's decision failed to state adequate reasons, and accordingly, to annul the debit note.
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the alternative, to declare that the documentary evidence produced by the applicant was not taken into consideration; that no examination was made into the liability of the … group, and accordingly to annul the debit note as to its substance.
            
         
               —
            
            
               In any event, to declare that the final instalment of the grant was not paid to the applicant, whereas the latter did not waive its right to its payment in any way; accordingly, to order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 34 368, together with interest from the date the action was raised; to order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of damages; to order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000 in respect of the costs of the procedure; to order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 21 December 1999, the applicant signed, together with the European Community, represented by the European Commission, a contract IST-1999-10934 — ASSIST relating to the ‘Knowledge Management for Help Desk Operators ’project, which was entered into under the fifth framework programme of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002), in the field of user-friendly information.
   Following the enquiry carried out by OLAF and its audit report, the Commission sent the debit note to the applicant, requiring the repayment of the amount already paid by way of Community grant, pursuant to the relevant provision of the contract allowing the Commission to require such a repayment in the event of a finding of fraud or serious financial irregularities in the implementation of the project. That decision represents the contested decision in the present action. In addition, the applicant requests the Court of First Instance to order the Commission to pay the final instalment of the grant and to order the Commission to compensate it for the loss and damage it has suffered by reason, first, of the non-payment of the final instalment of the grant and, secondly, by reason of the procedures initiated, initially by OLAF, and subsequently by the Commission.
   In support of its application for annulment, the applicant alleges an infringement of fundamental rights, in particular the right to a fair hearing, in the audit enquiry relating to the ASSIST project carried out by OLAF. It claims that it was not in a position to make relevant observations during the inquiry stage and that OLAF's final report, on which the Commission's decision was based, was not sent to it, thereby preventing it from replying to the accusations made against it.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the decision failed to state adequate reasons and that the objections were notified to it out of time.
   In the alternative, the applicant puts forward a number of pleas in law relating to the substance of the contested decision, and claims in particular that the Commission did not take into account the documentary evidence put forward by the applicant concerning expenditure incurred. In addition, it claims that it is the LA POSTE group, which was the real beneficiary of the grant, and not itself, which should be held liable for any irregularities that may have occurred.