CELEX: 62010TN0110
Language: en
Date: 2010-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-110/10: Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Insula v Commission

22.5.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 134/40
            
         Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Insula v Commission
   (Case T-110/10)
   2010/C 134/68
   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: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the action to be admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare that the Commission's demand for repayment of a sum of EUR 84 120 is unfounded and, therefore, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 84 120;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order that the action be joined to Case T-366/09, on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the written and oral procedure;
            
         
               —
            
            
               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 note of 28 January 2010 by which the Commission, following an audit report from OLAF, demanded recovery of the advances paid to the applicant, does not comply with the terms of the EL HIERRO (NNE5/2001/950) contract concluded within the framework of a specific program for research, technological development and demonstration on energy, the environment and sustainable development.
   The applicant puts forwards two pleas in law.
   By the first plea in law, it challenges the enforceability of the debt claimed by the Commission following the audit carried out in 2005.
   By the second plea in law, it claims that the Commission, by issuing the new debit note, is in breach of its contractual obligations which no longer entitle it to demand, six years after the last payment to Insula and without notification on its part in the period laid down by the contract, additional supporting documentary evidence.