30.4.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/37

Action brought on 16 February 2005 by The International Institute for the Urban Environment against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-74/05)

(2005/C 106/74)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 February 2005 by The International Institute for the Urban Environment, established in Delft (the Netherlands) represented by Ph. W. M. ter Burg, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Decision INFSO-R2/RB/SOC/Isc D(2004) 541407 regarding the financial audit of IIUE-NL 02-BA14-032 of the Commission;

—

declare it for law that the sum claimed by the applicant is justified and according to the contracts;

—

allow IIEU to claim the hours it spent on the Contracts and to order the Commission to make a well justified decision in accordance with the applicable communal rules of sound administration;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The International Institute for the Urban Environment is a one-man business fully owned by the applicant. In 1999 it entered into contract No. IPS-1999-00016 with the Commission, under the terms of which the Institute would receive financial assistance in the context of the technological development programme ‘Promotion of innovation and encouragement of SME participation’. The Commission proceeded to an audit regarding the reimbursements claimed by the contractors and the applicant challenges the findings of that audit concerning personnel costs.

The applicant first contends that the method used by the Institute to calculate personnel costs was allowed under the conditions of the contract and that, further, the Commission's attention was explicitly drawn to the use of this particular method. The Commission never rejected that method which, according to the applicant, had also been used in the context of other programmes submitted by the applicant for which the Commission had also provided financial assistance. The applicant thus argues that he was justified in considering that this method was acceptable by the Commission.

The applicant further alleges that the contested decision does not contain a sufficient statement of reasons and is disproportional with regard to the aim pursued, since the total sum claimed by the applicant is, in his view, reasonable and in accordance with the contracts.