- 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 C-378/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 in Case T-539/13, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0378
62016CN0378
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 326/17
—
(Case C-378/16 P)
(2016/C 326/29)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Appellant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (represented by: S. Famiani, avvocato)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the order under appeal;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By decision of 17 July 2013, the European Commission requested payment from Inclusion Alliance for Europe of a total amount of EUR 212 411,89 in respect of Projects No 224 482 (MARE), No 216 820 (SENIOR), and No 225 010 (ECRN). Inclusion Alliance for Europe brought an action seeking annulment of that decision before the General Court, which gave a decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Inclusion Alliance for Europe claims that the order under appeal should be set aside in its entirety, for the reasons outlined below.
The order under appeal failed to take into account or to apply the general principles of EU law in the assessment of the action brought against the Commission’s decision.
The General Court erroneously regarded the arguments put forward in the reply as pleas in law which had been submitted for the first time, whereas they are, on the contrary, clarifications of the pleas in law and arguments already set out in the original application, with the result that there is no infringement of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991.
Regarding the submissions made concerning the principles of EU law applicable to the audit procedure, the General Court provided an inadequate, or even no, statement of reasons, incorrectly continuing to bring the case back to the issue of interpretation/breach of contract rather than taking the infringement of the general principles of EU law into account.
The order under appeal fails to take into account or to apply the general principles of EU law with regard to the claim of unjust enrichment and the claim for compensation brought against the European Commission.
—