EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-381/20: Action brought on 20 June 2020 — Datax v REA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0381

62020TN0381

June 20, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
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

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/39

(Case T-381/20)

(2020/C 297/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Datax sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Bober, lawyer)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision taken on 13 November 2019 (ARES 2019 7018535 — 13/11/2019) that refers to partial rejection of eligible costs and recovery of the EU contribution and that requires the applicant to pay liquidated damages;

order the Research Executive Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings including costs of professional representation before the Court incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging errors as to the established factual findings and violation of Polish labour law.

2.Second plea in law, alleging violation of the underlying principles of European Union law, in particular the rule of law.

3.Third plea in law, alleging lack of irregularities by the applicant.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of application of principle of proportionality.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging an erroneous claim of breach by the applicant of grant agreements.

6.Sixth plea in law, a subsidiary plea, alleging that the contested decision was erroneously issued by the REA, an executive agency of the European Union, instead of the European Commission.

7.Seventh plea in law, a further subsidiary plea, alleging a violation of the law of the Kingdom of Belgium.

8.Eighth plea in law, also a subsidiary plea, alleging that the defendant’s financial claims are time barred.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia