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-500/24: Action brought on 20 September 2024 – Inescop v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0500

62024TN0500

January 1, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/7177

9.12.2024

(Case T-500/24)

(C/2024/7177)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de Investigación para la Industria del Calzado y Conexas (Inescop) (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: C. Morales Ruiz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul in its entirety the decision of the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of 23 July 2024 ordering the recovery of certain eligible costs and the payment of liquidated damages on the ground that the statutory limitation period in respect of any irregularities committed in the DES-MOLD, SOHEALTHY and PILOT-APB projects, of four years, in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, (1) had expired;

in the alternative, in the event that the principal claim is not upheld, annul in its entirety the decision of the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of 23 July 2024 ordering the recovery of certain eligible costs and the payment of liquidated damages on the ground that the statutory limitation period in respect of any irregularities committed in the DES-MOLD, SOHEALTHY and PILOT-APB projects, of five years, in accordance with (i) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, (2) applicable ratione temporis to the DES-MOLD project, and (ii) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, (3) applicable ratione temporis to the SOHEALTHY and PILOT-APB projects, had expired;

in the further alternative, in the event that the previous claim is not upheld, (i) annul in its entirety the decision of the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of 23 July 2024 ordering the recovery of certain eligible costs and the payment of liquidated damages and order, if necessary, that a new procedure – in which Inescop’s linguistic rights are guaranteed – be initiated and (ii), consequently, order the provision to Inescop of a copy in Spanish of each and every communication, decision, ruling and report from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), so that it can properly defend itself in inter partes proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of legality, the hierarchy of norms and legal certainty in relation to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests and infringement of the case-law of the courts and tribunals of the European Union interpreting it.

2.Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of legality, the hierarchy of norms and legal certainty in relation to the financial regulations of the European Union.

3.Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of legal certainty and infringement of the case-law of the courts and tribunals of the European Union developing it.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to address the European Commission in one of the Treaty languages and to obtain a response in the same language.

(1) OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.

(3) OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7177/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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