Action brought on 15 July 2011 - Pigui v Commission
(Case T-382/11)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Cristina Pigui (Strejnic, Romania) (represented by: M. Alexe, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
Oblige the defendant to disclose information as to the identity of any higher education institution involved in the online Master 2008-2010 of the Jean Monnet programme;
Oblige the defendant to stop the program if no higher education institution is involved, to ask written study contract between students and organizers and to ask for a uniform system of evaluation for all students involved; and
Oblige the Commission to restore the ab initio situation of the applicant showing that the 2008-2010 programme did not meet the Jean Monnet programme standards, at least in so far as the applicant is concerned.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of its application the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 265 TFUE, a declaration that the defendant unlawfully failed to act, as it did not disclose the results of the public investigation requested by the applicant.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 6(3) and 15 of Decision No 1720/2006/EC
1, as it failed to investigate and disclose information as requested by the applicant, as well as Articles 11 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as the defendant infringed the transparency principle and consumer protection laws.
2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 4 and 5 of Directive 97/7/EC
2 and Articles 2(a)(b) and 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC
3 as it failed to investigate and evaluate the online master of the Jean Monet programme against its objectives in accordance with Article 15 of Decision No 1720/2006/EC.
3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 5 of Directive 97/7/EC and Articles 2(a)(b), 6 and 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC, as it failed to investigate the double standard of students' evaluation system.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as Article 2 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as the applicant did not receive equal treatment in the framework of the online master of the Jean Monnet programme.
____________1 - Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning (OJ 2006 L 327, p. 45)2 - Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19)3 - Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council ('Unfair Commercial Practices Directive') (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)