19.12.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/30

(Case T-387/09)

2009/C 312/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Applied Microengineering Ltd (Didcot, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Walravens and J. De Wachter, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the Commission decision dated 16 July 2009 ordering the recovery of an amount of EUR 258 560,61 plus interests;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision C(2009)5797 of 16 July 2009 relating to the recovery of certain amount plus interests due by the applicant in the framework of the projects IST-199-11823 FOND MST (‘Formation of a New Design House for MST’) and IST-2000-28229 ANAB (‘Assessment of a New Anodic Bonder’) funded under specific programme implementing research, technological development and demonstration activities in the user-friendly information society (1998-2002).

The applicant puts forward seven pleas in support of its claims.

First, it submits that the Commission infringed the essential procedural requirements by failing to conduct a full and proper audit procedure. The applicant states that the Commission failed to inform it of the start of the audit procedure, of the closing of it and it did not take into account the objections submitted by the applicant. The applicant further claims that the Commission violated its rights of defence and the principle of sound administration and the duty of care.

Second, the applicant contends that the action of the Commission was time-barred at least for the payments made more that five years before the official start of the audit procedure.

Third, the applicant argues that the Commission has committed manifest errors of assessment by applying the auditor’s erroneous interpretation of the rules regarding the eligible costs.

Fourth, it claims that the Commission violated fundamental social rights and right to a fair remuneration by accepting hourly rates for workers below the minimum wage.

Fifth, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the principle of legitimate expectations that the working method of average employment costs, as proposed by the applicant, was valid and the ‘target salaries’ would be considered an acceptable practice for the contractor.

Sixth, it argues that the Commission disregarded its obligation to state reasons as it fully relied on the audit report without considering the applicant’s comments or request for reopening the audit procedure.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission breached the principle of sound administration and the duty of care by sending letters to the wrong address and not investigating the arguments put forward by the applicant.