Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/31

(Case T-819/14)

(2015/C 089/37)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Mezhdunaroden tsentar za izsledvane na maltsinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodeystvia (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Hristo Hristev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the European Commission act contained in its letter under reference number ARES (2014) 2848632 01/09/2014 and in debit note No 3241409948 attached to that letter under reference number ARES (2014) 2848632 01/09/2014;

—reimburse the applicant the costs it incurred during the proceedings;

—in the alternative, in the event that the action for annulment is dismissed, order the defendant, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, in so far as the defendant deliberately ensured that the applicant would have to bear those costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s action is admissible, in the light of the fact that the contested act must be regarded as an adopted act, in the context of the exercise of public powers, in relation to a third party who thereby acquires an interest in challenging the finding that it committed an infringement, and that finding constitutes a necessary prerequisite for the adoption of measures which adversely affect it.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of sound administration, in so far as, first, it failed to carry out an examination of the facts of the dispute which was complete in all respects, objective and consistent, or an examination of the legal arguments put forward by the person concerned and in so far as, secondly, it failed to provide reasons for its act.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty in so far as the operative part of the act is unclear, in particular concerning the nature of that act.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as, in the absence of comments from the Commission regarding earlier projects, whether concerning their implementation or the treatment of financial documents, the applicant acquired a legitimate expectation that its documentation was correctly treated and that it was not necessary to provide corrections, whether to ongoing or future projects, since its legitimate expectation was created by a reliable source, namely the European Commission.