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-224/09: Action brought on 5 June 2009 — CEVA v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0224

62009TN0224

June 5, 2009
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

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/40

(Case T-224/09)

2009/C 205/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

principally, declare that no contractual link exists between the European Commission and CEVA (European Research Center for Algae) and, consequently,

annul enforcement order No 3230900440 of the European Commission of 6 April 2009;

in the alternative, find that no statement of reasons has been provided for enforcement order No 3230900440 of the European Commission of 6 April 2009;

declare that there is a risk of unjust enrichment of the Commission in the event that CEVA reimburses the sum of EUR 179 896 together with default interest;

consequently, annul enforcement order No 3230900440 of the European Commission of 6 April 2009.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the enforcement order by which the Commission demanded reimbursement of all the payments made on account to the applicant in the framework of contract PROTOP No EVK3-CT-2002-30004 relating to a research and technological development project.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging:

that the enforcement order is inadmissible since no contractual link exists between the applicant and the Commission;

failure to provide a sufficient statement of reasons, since the Commission relied on an alleged infringement of the contractual obligations by the applicant without however setting out the legal and factual reasons in support of that claim;

infringement of the principle of unjust enrichment, since the reimbursement in full of the sum demanded by the Commission means that it would be unjustly enriched insofar as it has obtained work and studies by the applicant without however paying for them to be carried out.

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