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-387/07: Action brought on 11 October 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0387

62007TN0387

October 11, 2007
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/44

(Case T-387/07)

(2007/C 297/90)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L. Inês Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund for the global grant ‘SGAIA’ (global grant for local development) pursuant to Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995;

an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Lack of clarity in the statement of reasons. With the expression ‘as shown above’, the defendant makes a generic reference to the analysis summarily carried out and reconstructed in the contested decision. In Chapter 6, ‘Conclusions’, the defendant does not clearly identify what are the laws or provisions infringed by the Portuguese Republic.

Non-existence of the irregularity detected and infringement of the terms of the agreement concluded by the Commission and the Caixa Geral de Depósitos on 15 November 1995 by the Commission in the contested decision. The irregularity referred to by the Commission in the contested decision is groundless, for no account has been taken of Articles 5 and 6 of the Agreement, which allow the remaining future payments to be put back to 31 December 2001.

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