3.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/20

(Case T-299/15)

(2015/C 254/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Nova Onlus Consorzio nazionale di cooperative sociali — Soc. coop. (Trani, Italy) (represented by: M. Astolfi and M. Petrucci, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Find and declare that the contractual obligations set out in Grant Agreement No HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 Abac No. 30-CE-0495809/00-94 were complied with in full, and consequently:

—Declare that the applicant is entitled to retain the sum of EUR 80 242,78, which was received by way of the ‘pre-financing payment’ and is currently the subject of the debit note for recovery of the above-mentioned sum issued by the European Commission — Directorate General Migration and Home Affairs — Directorate E: Migration and Security Funds — Unit E2: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund — HOME E2/FL/2015, No 1520007 of 1 April 2015 concerning HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 TORRE — Transnational Observatory for Refugee’s Resettlement in Europe — No 3241503771.

—Order the defendant to pay the outstanding balance of EUR 52 146,36, as ‘final payment’, in addition to the late-payment interest, to be calculated up to the date of payment in full, in accordance with Article II.16.3 of the Grant Agreement, as well as the legal costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

In the alternative:

—Annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate General Migration and Home Affairs — Directorate E: Migration and Security Funds — Unit E2”: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund — HOME E2/FL/2015, No 1520007 of 1 April 2015 concerning ‘HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 TORRE — Transnational Observatory for Refugee’s Resettlement in Europe — debit note No 3241503771’ regarding recovery of the sum of EUR 80 242,78, and any other earlier, preparatory and/or subsequent act.

—Order the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of EUR 52 146,36 for the implementation of Grant Agreement No HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 Abac No. 30-CE-0495809/00-94 as ‘final payment’, in addition to late payment interest, to be calculated up to the date of payment in full, in accordance with Article II.16.3 of the Grant Agreement, as well as the legal costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to pay the balance owing and breach of the obligations set out in Article II.15.4 of the Grant Agreement.

—In that regard, the applicant alleges infringement of the audi alteram partem rule in relation to the Commission’s conduct, and of the principles of transparency, impartiality and neutrality of the independent assessor.

2.Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligations to objectively assess the result in relation to Annex I (LogFrame) to the Grant Agreement, and in relation to the restrictions on reducing the balance owing laid down in Article II.17.5 of the Grant Agreement and the restrictions on penalties referred to in Article II.12 of that agreement.

—In that regard, the applicant claims as follows: the Commission played a part in the failure to achieve the results; the Commission was unjustly enriched; the principle of good administration was infringed with regard to the assessment of the project’s objectives and in the light of the part played by the Commission; the principle of compliance with essential procedural requirements was also infringed.

3.Third plea in law, alleging extensive failure to meet contractual obligations.

—In that regard, the applicant claims as follows: the principles of proportionality, sincere cooperation, and the right to a fair hearing were infringed as regards the Commission’s conduct during the inspection and debit procedure; Article 42(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was also infringed.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligations set out in Article II.14

—In that regard, the applicant claims that the principle of legitimate expectations was infringed with regard to the eligibility of the expenditure concerning human resources and research activities.