This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TB0236
Case T-236/19: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA (Action for annulment — Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) — Call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) — Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria — Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision — Application submitted by a de facto association — Capacity to be party to legal proceedings — No evidence of legal existence — Inadmissibility)
Case T-236/19: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA (Action for annulment — Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) — Call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) — Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria — Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision — Application submitted by a de facto association — Capacity to be party to legal proceedings — No evidence of legal existence — Inadmissibility)
Case T-236/19: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA (Action for annulment — Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) — Call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) — Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria — Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision — Application submitted by a de facto association — Capacity to be party to legal proceedings — No evidence of legal existence — Inadmissibility)
OJ C 175, 25.5.2020, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.5.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 175/26 |
Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA
(Case T-236/19) (1)
(Action for annulment - Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) - Call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) - Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria - Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision - Application submitted by a de facto association - Capacity to be party to legal proceedings - No evidence of legal existence - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 175/34)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize (Houffalize, Belgium) (represented by: A. Kettels, lawyer)
Defendants: European Commission and the ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and N. Durand, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment or variation, first, of the EACEA’s decision of 25 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for a grant in respect of its call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) and, secondly, of Commission Implementing Decision C (2019) 572 final of 4 February 2019, rejecting the administrative action brought by the applicant under Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).
Operative part of the order
|
1. |
The action is dismissed. |
|
2. |
There is no need to rule on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA). |
|
3. |
There is no need to rule on the EACEA’s application for leave to intervene. |
|
4. |
Le Comité du Douzelage de Houffalize shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the EACEA, with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
|
5. |
The EACEA shall bear its own costs in relation to the application for leave to intervene. |