Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Movimondo ONLUS v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-329/05)

(2005/C 257/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties:

Applicant: Movimondo ONLUS (Rome, Italy) (represented by Paolo Vitali, Giulia Verusio, Gian Michele Roberti and Alessandra Franchi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought:

The applicant's principal claim is that the Court should:

The applicant's subsidiary claim is that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In this action the principal claim of the applicant organisation — an international cooperation and solidarity NGO — pursuant to Article 238 EC, is that the European Commission should be ordered to pay the sums due under contractual obligations arising out of several Grant Agreements concluded within the ambit of Framework Partnership Agreement No 3-134, in force from 1 December 2003, and concerning the financing by the European Commission of urgent humanitarian actions carried out in full and properly accounted for.

Its subsidiary claim pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC is for annulment of the decision suspending the time-limits for payment contained in the letter of 17 June 2005 of Director General Antonio Cavaco, Humanitarian Aid Office, ECHO 3, Ref. D 6613, concerning the ‘injunction to pay outstanding payments due to Movimondo’ and the decision of 27 July 2005 of Director General Antonio Cavaco, Humanitarian Aid Office ECHO 3, Ref. D 8136.

In support of its application for annulment of the decision suspending the time-limits for payment contained in the letter of 17 June 2005, the applicant puts forward in particular three pleas in law.

In the first plea, it argues that in adopting the decision to suspend the time-limits for payment in question ECHO's staff have exercised their authority improperly, taking as the legal basis for the contested decision Article 106(4) of Regulation 2342/2002, (1) outside the specific situations and purposes provided for by that provision. In the second, it alleges failure to state the grounds of the contested decisions, contrary to Article 253 EC, and to Article 106(4) of Regulation No 2342/2002; last, in its third plea, it alleges a procedural infringement of Article 106(4) of Regulation No 2342/2002, ECHO's staff not having informed Movimondo directly of the suspension order.

In support of its action for annulment of the decision of 27 July 2005, however, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

In the first, the applicant alleges failure to state the grounds of the contested decision; in the second, it challenges the breach of the general principle of presumption of innocence, and breach of the right to a fair hearing, in that the ECHO staff did not take steps to inform it of the initiatives they meant to take regarding it, nor did they give it the opportunity to be heard in that context. In the third plea, it challenges the breach of Article 106(4) of Regulation 2342/2002 and also alleges misuse of powers by ECHO staff. Last, in the fourth plea, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357 of 31 December 2002).