Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1890

7.4.2025

(Case T-68/25)

(C/2025/1890)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación Alianza por los Derechos, la Igualdad y la Solidaridad Internacional (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Delgado Carravilla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—Annul the decision issued by the Delegation of the European Union to Colombia, debit note No 3242414662 of 28 November 2024 relating to EUR 65 695,90, under grant agreement CSO/LA/2018/394060, on the grounds of infringement of the rights referred to, and order that a new decision be issued upholding the applicant’s claims, finding that the items and amounts of the eligible costs at issue have been properly explained and evidenced.

—In the alternative, order that a new decision be issued which:

(a)Annuls the contested decision on the ground of failure to state reasons, without going into the substance of the case;

(b)Orders the Delegation of the European Union to Colombia to issue a new decision duly stating clear and precise reasons for the requirement that the funds be recovered, specifying the items and amounts that have not been duly explained and evidenced and the criteria that were applied in order to determine them;

(c)States explicitly what substantive and procedural rules apply to the present proceedings and clarifies the legal provisions that govern both the recovery procedure and the organisation’s rights in that context to challenge the contested decision in administrative or judicial proceedings;

(d)Provides clear and specific information on the available remedies and the competent bodies before which the decision can be challenged.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is invalid and that a new decision should be issued upholding the claims made by the applicant:

—Submission and assessment of evidence: the applicant asserts that the documents were submitted within the prescribed time and in proper form in accordance with the applicable rules, and that they must therefore be found to be valid and be assessed as a whole;

—Principle of legality and principle that the accused person must be informed in advance of the accusation: the applicant claims that both the foregoing principles were infringed because the Commission failed to indicate the provisions on the basis of which it declined to accept the documents submitted;

—Principle of proportionality: the applicant argues that the principle of proportionality was infringed by the application of a penalty in the form of recovery of the grant without consideration of the foundation’s conduct.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled and a new decision issued containing a sufficient statement of reasons:

—Failure to state reasons: the decision merely maintains the recovery requirement without explaining why the documents submitted are considered to be insufficient;

—Infringement of the rights of the defence: the decision does not indicate the remedies available against the decision.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1890/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—