Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-460/18 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, August 31, 2018

• Resolution Date: August 31, 2018
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-460/18

Action brought on 26 July 2018 - eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission

(Case T-460/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the Commission, concretely the individual legal act entitled “Payment by offsetting by outstanding claims and debts” issued by the European Commission, Budget execution dept. (general budget and EDF), ref. BUDG/DGA/C4/LM/24307, issued on 22 June 2018;

order the Commission to proceed to pay the eligible costs to the applicant (registered ID No. 42412439), as the original beneficiary and the contractual party of Grant Agreement INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788, Action 2015-SK-IA-0038 - “Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV”, in accordance with that valid and effective grant agreement, and concretely Article 4.1.3 thereof;

order the Commission to reimburse the costs and expenses of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging the annulment of the contested decision on the basis of infringement of the rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties, especially improper legal evaluation of the circumstances and facts of offsetting, because the applicant (registered ID No. 42412439), according to the Plaumann principle, is directly concerned by this decision and there is a direct negative impact of the decision on it.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission be ordered to proceed to payment of the eligible costs to the applicant as the original beneficiary and the contractual party of the grant agreement No. INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788, Action 2015-SK-IA-0038 - “Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV”, in accordance with the valid and effective grant agreement, concretely article 4.1.3 thereof, based on the fact that the Commission has the competence to deal with issues of project implementation and financial transfers in relation to the valid and effective contract between the Commission and the applicant.

The Commission’s contested decision relies on...