Action brought on 27 March 2012 - Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission

(Case T-134/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the European Commission Ref. Ares (2012) 39854 of 19January 2012 in so far as it provides for the reimbursement of the debit notes corresponding to audit 09-INFS-001/041;

order the Commission to compensate the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission's unlawful conduct at issue in the amount of EUR 732 788.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings has entered into a number of contracts with the Commission in relation to R&D, all regulated on the basis of Commission Decision C(2003) 3834 of 23 October 2003, which provides for a core contract of the type FP 5 or FP 6 and for the general conditions FP 5 and FP 6.

In relation to those contracts, and on the basis of the results of an investigation carried out by OLAF and an audit performed by the Commission, the Commission adopted a decision revoking subsidies.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.

1.    First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence, as a result of the means of execution of the said audit.

2.    Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, by denying the applicant the applicable legal framework throughout the procedure.

3.    Third plea in law, alleging a failure on the part of the Commission to comply with its duty to state reasons.

4.    Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence, as a result of the tone adopted by DG INFSO in its audit report.

5.    Fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to have regard for the right to good administration, as a result of failure on the part of the auditors to comply with their duty of impartiality and equality.

6.    Sixth plea in law, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, particularly with regard to the lack of accreditation of the external auditors and the origin of the audit process itself.

7.    Seventh plea in law, infringement of the principle of proportionality.

8.    Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to privacy.

____________