# C_2011370EN.01002802.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/28

---

Action brought on 18 October 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-554/11)

2011/C 370/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the European Commission to refuse to execute the payments due to the applicant and instead to recover the amount already paid in the framework of the implementation of contract EuropeAid/124378/D/SER/TN (No 2007/145-464), communicated to the applicant by letter dated 8 August 2011 (Ref.: C&F/2011/D/001101) and the attached debit note; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the European Commission to refuse to execute the payments due to the applicant and instead to recover the amount already paid in the framework of the implementation of contract EuropeAid/124378/D/SER/TN (No 2007/145-464), communicated to the applicant by letter dated 8 August 2011 (Ref.: C&F/2011/D/001101) and the attached debit note;

| — | Annul all the relevant subsequent decisions of the defendant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul all the relevant subsequent decisions of the defendant; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment when deciding that the applicant should reimburse a certain amount instead of being paid the amount due for work executed, approved and validated. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment when deciding that the applicant should reimburse a certain amount instead of being paid the amount due for work executed, approved and validated.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misinterpreted the legal basis and its right to recover the requested amount, thereby infringing Article 79 of the Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation (1) by failure to consider the confirmation on the time-sheets of the applicant’s experts and the volume of effort provided by them and validated adequately, even more so since no comments on the completed work were made in tempore non suspecto. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misinterpreted the legal basis and its right to recover the requested amount, thereby infringing Article 79 of the Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation (1) by failure to consider the confirmation on the time-sheets of the applicant’s experts and the volume of effort provided by them and validated adequately, even more so since no comments on the completed work were made in tempore non suspecto.

1

in tempore non suspecto

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration, good faith and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, as:






  — | It refused to pay amounts due for validated and accepted work; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration, good faith and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, as:

—

It refused to pay amounts due for validated and accepted work;

| — | It failed to inform the applicant in due time on any doubts with regard to its obligation to pay the applicant the amounts verified by the auditor; and |
| --- | --- |

—

It failed to inform the applicant in due time on any doubts with regard to its obligation to pay the applicant the amounts verified by the auditor; and

| — | It encouraged the applicant to continue its work for 12 months and to provide services, under the assumption that it would be paid for such work. |
| --- | --- |

—

It encouraged the applicant to continue its work for 12 months and to provide services, under the assumption that it would be paid for such work.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons, as well as the applicant’s rights of defence, as it refused the payment of due amounts and, instead, ordered the recovery of a certain amount from the applicant, without providing any analysis or justification of its decision on the respective amount. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons, as well as the applicant’s rights of defence, as it refused the payment of due amounts and, instead, ordered the recovery of a certain amount from the applicant, without providing any analysis or justification of its decision on the respective amount.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the execution of the contested decision constituted a misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the execution of the contested decision constituted a misuse of powers.

---

(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 2002 L 357, p. 1)

1

---