CELEX: 62015TN0045
Language: en
Date: 2015-02-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-45/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015  — Hydrex v Commission

23.3.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 96/23
            
         Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Hydrex v Commission
   (Case T-45/15)
   (2015/C 096/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Hydrex NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare unlawful and therefore annul European Commission decision C(2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, notified to the applicant under Article 297 TFEU by letter of 13 January 2015, concerning recovery order No. 3241405101 for the amount of EUR 5 40  721,10, on the ground that there was a manifest failure to state reasons and, consequently, a manifest error of assessment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to return all the amounts wrongly claimed and/or retained;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In 2006, the grant contract LIFE06 ENV/B/000362, entitled ‘Demonstration of a 100 % non-toxic durable hull protection and anti-fouling system contributing to zero emission to the aquatic environment and saving 3-8 % heavy fuels’, was signed by the European Commission and the applicant. The recovery by the Commission at issue is based on an ex-post audit which allegedly showed that the eligible costs of the project had to be reduced.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the obligation to state reasons has been infringed. It submits that the Commission took no account of an audit that was carried out when all the documents were still available. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission took no account of its observation on the ex-post audit report, which justified an additional amount.