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-481/08: Action brought on 5 November 2008 — Alisei v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0481

62008TN0481

January 1, 2008
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

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/40

(Case T-481/08)

(2009/C 6/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alisei NGO (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, S. Gobbato, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annulment of Commission Decision D (2007) 8449 of 19 August 2008;

Order the Commission to compensate for the loss suffered;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a non-governmental organisation active in the field of international cooperation for development and humanitarian assistance, challenges the Commission's decision confirming that the procedure initiated in June 2006, concerning the accounting verification of a selection of contracts concluded with the applicant, was in order. The Commission had also provided the applicant with the final report from Ernst & Young, informing it that that report was a reliable technical basis for taking the necessary measures, in particular the launching of a recovery procedure for a total amount of EUR 4 750 121.

The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of its action:

infringement of the principle of sound administration and diligence in administrative action, in that the applicant was subjected to an administrative procedure the nature and rules for implementation of which were quite specific, only to discover subsequently that that procedure in reality had a purpose and was conducted in a manner quite different from what had been communicated to it. In particular, the defendant decided, first of all, to initiate an accounting verification procedure to be carried out through an audit, before accepting the findings obtained through a different verification procedure, a ‘amicable procedure’, of which the applicant was never informed.

infringement of the provisions governing limitations, in that the decision orders, without distinction, the recovery of amounts which should not have been claimed because the defendant's right to demand repayment of those amounts had been extinguished.

The applicant also alleges infringement of its rights of defence, and of the principle of proportionality.

Lastly, it asks that the Commission be ordered to compensate for the loss suffered.

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