6.5.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/47

(Case T-145/19)

(2019/C 155/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: G. Alabau Zabal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the act adopted by the European Commission setting the amount to be repaid by the applicant due to the reduction of funding in Programme LIFE 11.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the act of the European Commission of 14 January 2019, notified on 24 January 2019, setting the amount which the applicant must repay due to the reduction of funding in Programme LIFE 11 ENV/ES/000593-H2AL RECYCLING, and making an order for payment.

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

—In that regard, the applicant submits that the European Commission did not present any arguments or data enabling the applicant to counter its arguments beyond the content of the initial letter of January 2017, in which the applicant was informed of the expenses which were not eligible for funding, given that, in all its communications, the Commission merely reproduced the same arguments.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty or any legal rule relating to its application.

—In that regard, the applicant submits that acts which limit subjective rights or legitimate interests must state the reasons on which they are based, in accordance with EU law, given that, otherwise, there may be arbitrary conduct in favour of the party adopting the act, and there may be an abuse of power, which would be contrary to the principles of proportionality, legitimate expectation, equal treatment and ‘prohibition of arbitrariness’ laid down in EU law.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence

—In that regard, the applicant submits that there is a lack of justification for the act, as no solid administrative criteria have been stated for declaring certain costs ineligible and, consequently, it is not possible to challenge them.