# C_2014184EN.01003201.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/32 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 7 March 2014 — Calberson GE v Commission

(Case T-164/14)

2014/C 184/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Calberson GE (Villeneuve-la-Garenne, France) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the European Commission to pay it the following amounts:
—
financial costs generated by the late release of supply securities: EUR 7 691,60 including tax; —
default interest to run from the due date of the transport invoices to the time of their effective payment: EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17; —
‘default interest on default interest’: 2% per month of late payment of the aforementioned default interest (EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17); —
balance of one transport invoice: EUR 17 400 including tax; —
differential of one rate of exchange: EUR 30 580,41 including tax; | — | financial costs generated by the late release of supply securities: EUR 7 691,60 including tax; | — | default interest to run from the due date of the transport invoices to the time of their effective payment: EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17; | — | ‘default interest on default interest’: 2% per month of late payment of the aforementioned default interest (EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17); | — | balance of one transport invoice: EUR 17 400 including tax; | — | differential of one rate of exchange: EUR 30 580,41 including tax; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | financial costs generated by the late release of supply securities: EUR 7 691,60 including tax; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | default interest to run from the due date of the transport invoices to the time of their effective payment: EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | ‘default interest on default interest’: 2% per month of late payment of the aforementioned default interest (EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17); | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | balance of one transport invoice: EUR 17 400 including tax; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | differential of one rate of exchange: EUR 30 580,41 including tax; | | | | | | | | | | |

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was, pursuant to Regulations Nos 111/1999( 1 ) and 1799/1999,( 2 ) awarded a contract relating to the transport of beef to the Russian Federation under the programme to supply agricultural products to that country.

Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 January 2013 in Case C-623/11 Geodis Calberson GE (not yet published in the ECR), which conferred upon the European Union courts jurisdiction to rule on actions for compensation for damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the national intervention agency, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage it suffered in the performance of that contract.

The applicant thus argues that the national intervention agency committed acts of misconduct — namely (i) the late release of securities for performance of the contract supplied by the applicant (ii) the late payment of uncontested invoices, (iii) the non-payment of certain uncontested invoices and (iv) the settlement of certain invoices in a currency other than that stipulated in the contract — causing the applicant to suffer damage.

---

( 1 )  Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3).

( 2 )  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1799/1999 of 16 August 1999 on the supply of beef to Russia (OJ 1999 L 217, p. 20).

---