CELEX: 62009TN0366
Language: en
Date: 2009-09-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-366/09: Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Insula v Commission

21.11.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 282/53
            
         Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Insula v Commission
   (Case T-366/09)
   2009/C 282/100
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               declare the action admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 114 996,82 is unfounded and, consequently, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 114 996,82;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 253 617,08 is well-founded in part and, consequently, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 174 044,85;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay damages of EUR 146 261,06;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation in the sum of EUR 573 273,42;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests the Court to declare that the debit notes by which the Commission demands, following a report from OLAF, recovery of advances paid to the applicant do not comply with the clauses of the various contracts concluded in respect of projects under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on energy, environment and sustainable development and under the ALTENER II programme.
   The pleas and main arguments raised by the applicant are essentially identical to those raised in Case T-246/09 Insula v Commission. (1)
   
   
      (1)  OJ 2009 C 193, p. 30.