CELEX: C2007/235/47
Language: en
Date: 2007-10-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-314/07: Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion v Commission and EACEA

6.10.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 235/25
            
         Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion v Commission and EACEA
   (Case T-314/07)
   (2007/C 235/47)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Reich and D. Sharma, lawyers)
   
      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Decision Debit Note No 3240905584 of 20 June 2007;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendants to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 1998, the applicant and the Commission signed a contract relating to support for a computer-animated cartoon series within the framework of the MEDIA II — Development and distribution programme (1). By letter of 20 June 2007, EACEA demanded reimbursement by the applicant of all of the monies advanced pursuant to that contract. The applicant brought the present action to contest that decision.
   The applicant claims, first, that EACEA was not formally competent to take the contested decision, as it is the Commission that remains competent in that regard.
   Further, the applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful because of a breach of the duty to provide reasons for the acts of an authority for the purposes of Article 256 EC.
   In addition, the applicant's rights of defence have been infringed inasmuch as its application to inspect the file was rejected, thus making it impossible for the applicant to determine the criterion used to justify the demand for repayment.
   The applicant complains also that the support contract was not validly terminated, and that the conditions for its termination also did not exist. In that regard, it claims, inter alia, that the termination of the contract and the demand for repayment of the financial support advanced constitute an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
   
      (1)  Council Decision 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on the implementation of a programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (Media II — Development and distribution) (1996-2000) (OJ 1995 L 321, p. 25).