- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-106/08: Action brought on 27 February 2008 — CPEM v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0106
62008TN0106
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
26.4.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 107/39
(Case T-106/08)
(2008/C 107/67)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) (Marseille, France) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
—annulment of the debit note;
—recognise a right to damages for public detriment to the reputation of a body acting in the context of a task of general interest (estimated at EUR 100 000);
—repayment of lawyers' fees and the costs of legal assistance made necessary, proof of which can be provided.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision contained in debit note No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007, cancelling, following an OLAF report, the assistance granted by the European Social Fund to finance, by way of a global subsidy, a pilot project carried out by the applicant (1) the annulment of which is sought by the applicant in Case T-444/07 CPME v Commission (2).
In support of its application, the applicant submits, principally, that the Commission has erred in law and exceeded its powers in so far as the contested debit note was not addressed to the actual debtor. By relying on infringement of Article 135 of the Financial Regulation No 1605/2002 (3), it submits that the debit note should have been addressed to the body which played a financially responsible role in the project concerned, which actually received the grant from the European Social Fund.
Moreover, the applicant submits that the fact that the debit note was addressed to it damages its image and its credibility with respect to its financial partners given the general interest task it performs.
(1) Commission Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999, amended by Decision No C(2001) 2144 of 18 September 2001.
(2) OJ 2008 C 37, p. 29.
(3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).