- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-739/21: Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Eurecna v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0739
62021TN0739
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
14.2.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 73/49
(Case T-739/21)
(2022/C 73/62)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decisions requiring loans to be repaid as contained in the Commission’s letters of 10 September 2021, 16 September 2021 and 30 September 2021 by which the Commission took steps to recover almost the entire sum paid out in the context of a project financed by the European Union and held to be repayable following alleged irregularities in financial reporting; and
—order the Commission to pay the costs in the case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the decision of 10 September 2021 has no legal basis.
2.Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the rights of the defence in the context of the decision of 10 September 2021.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested loan does not exist.
—In that respect, the applicant relies on a breach of the principle of sound administration and diligence in administrative action in the context of the audit carried out by Ernst & Young (EY), a breach of the rights of the defence in the context of the audit carried out by EY, breach of the principle of sound administration due to a failure to comply with the duty of impartiality in administrative action, and a misinterpretation of the contract in the context of the relationship with EY.