- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-29/15: Action brought on 21 January 2015 — International Management Group v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0029
62015TN0029
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
C 81/28
(Case T-29/15)
(2015/C 081/36)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Burgstaller and C. Farrell, Solicitors, and E. Wright, Barrister)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the amended Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision of 7.11.2013 on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of Myanmar/Burma to be financed from the general budget of the European Union adopted on 16 December 2014; and
—order the European Commission to pay for the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to demonstrate that the applicant did not comply with the requirements provided in Article 53(d)(l) of the 2002 Financial Regulation (1) and Article 60(2) of the 2012 Financial Regulation (2).
2.Second plea in law, alleging that there were no changes to the standards applied in the applicant’s account, audit, internal control or procurement systems that would justify a decision by the European Commission to conclude that the applicant could no longer be entrusted with budget implementation tasks.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to respect principles of good administration and sound financial management.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its obligations related to the principle of transparency.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide the applicant with a route to redress.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that Commission failed in its duty to give reasons.
7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the adoption of the contested measures constitutes a breach of the applicant’s right to legitimate expectation.
(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, of 25 June 2002, on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended (OJ 2002, L 248, p. 1).
(2) 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 (OJ 2012, L 298, p. 1).