Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 15 December 2001 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-321/01)

    Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 December 2001 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., established at Rosbach (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Hans Kaltenecker, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul the decision of the European Commission of 16 October 2001 by which it refused the applicant's 1996 and 1997 requests for co-financing;

(order the Commission, pursuant to the principle of reimbursement, to pay the costs, including those resulting from the procedures before the Ombudsman which the applicant was constrained to incur in order to obtain its entitlement.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is challenging the Commission's decision of 16 October 2001 rejecting three requests for co-financing which it had made under budget heading B7-6000, concerning the co-financing of actions with European non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs) in fields relating to developing countries.

In that decision, the Commission explains that, in 1993, when examining previous requests by the applicant for co-financing, it concluded that the applicant was not eligible for such co-financing inasmuch as it did not meet the applicable criteria, and that once the competent departments declare an NGO to be ineligible for Community co-financing that decision automatically results in the rejection of any projects subsequently submitted, until such time as the NGO meets the eligibility criteria. In the applicant's view, that approach is not in conformity either with European Union law or with the principles of sound administration.

The applicant also states that the Commission has constantly maintained, both in the contested decision and in the course of the procedure which took place before the European Ombudsman following the complaints lodged by the applicant, that the applicant had acted fraudulently in order to obtain financing funds. The applicant asserts that that assessment is unfounded and that the contested decision is therefore unjustified.

____________