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-589/15: Action brought on 12 October 2015 — Eurorail v Commission and INEA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0589

62015TN0589

October 12, 2015
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

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/61

(Case T-589/15)

(2016/C 027/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurorail NV (Aalst, Belgium) (represented by: J. Derenne, N. Pourbaix and M. Domecq, lawyers)

Defendants: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, that INEA's decision of 17 July 2015 terminating the Grant Agreement (1) and ordering the recovery of part of the advances paid to the applicant, is invalid and unenforceable, and that the final grant amount due to the applicant be set at EUR 951,813;

alternatively, the applicant claims that the Commission and INEA be held contractually liable for the loss caused to the applicant as a result of the decision and order the recovery of EUR 581,770 (plus interest);

alternatively, order INEA/the Commission to withdraw the decision, and;

order INEA/the Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs.

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 that INEA and the Commission acted in breach of their obligations under the Grant Agreement. As a result, the applicant submits that they wrongfully terminated the Grant Agreement and ordered recovery of part of the advances paid to the applicant.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that INEA and the Commission acted in breach of the principle of performance in good faith of contractual obligations.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that INEA and the Commission breached the applicant's legitimate expectations.

(1) Grant Agreement MPO/09/058/SI1.5555667 ‘RAIL2’ (Marco Polo II Call 2009).

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