# C_2009006EN.01004102.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/41

---

Action brought on 17 November 2008 — Power-One Italy v Commission

(Case T-489/08)

(2009/C 6/81)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Power-One Italy SpA (Terranova, Bracciolini, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida, lawyer, A. Guissani, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, order the European Commission to compensate Power One Italy SpA for all the loss suffered and quantified in the amount of EUR 2 876 188,99 or, in the alternative, the cost incurred for the PNEUMA project or, in the further alternative, such amount as the Court considers just and appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

Pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, order the European Commission to compensate Power One Italy SpA for all the loss suffered and quantified in the amount of EUR 2 876 188,99 or, in the alternative, the cost incurred for the PNEUMA project or, in the further alternative, such amount as the Court considers just and appropriate;

| — | In the event of the applicant's being successful, order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the event of the applicant's being successful, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the decision to end the project known as ‘Pneuma’ and to recover the amount granted in advance to finance it. The purpose of that project was the creation of an innovative UPS system for the supply, through the use of an appropriate reserve of compressed air, of energy for the installations of the radio equipment serving as bases for cellular telephone networks. In order to carry out the project, the applicant concluded an agreement with strategic partners, in particular with the University of Florence, which was responsible for the planning and development of the practical aspects of the project and testing the prototypes of the new system, with ENEA and FEBE ECOLOGIC, for the environmental studies of the new UPS, and with TELEFONICA MOVILES, which made available a number of radio equipment bases in Spain in order to allow for the testing of prototypes in actual operational conditions.

Pursuant to the aforementioned decision of the Commission, the applicant had to reimburse the full amount received by way of advance financing and, in addition, was placed in the position of having to answer to its own strategic partners who had brought claims for compensation. In any event, Power One completed and delivered the project using its own funds, on the basis of a legitimate expectation that the Commission would continue to grant extensions, thereby incurring costs of EUR 2 876 188,99 and delivering the fully operational and functioning equipment in Spain as stipulated in agreements with the defendant and the partners.

The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of its action:

| — | Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) (1). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) (1).

1

| — | Inapplicability of Article 14 of the Standard administrative provisions Life — nature, in so far as the applicant has always acted properly and consistently in a spirit of cooperation and has always responded promptly to each of the Commission's requests. Moreover, the ‘Pneuma’ project was realised in full, made functional and tested. |
| --- | --- |

—

Inapplicability of Article 14 of the Standard administrative provisions Life — nature, in so far as the applicant has always acted properly and consistently in a spirit of cooperation and has always responded promptly to each of the Commission's requests. Moreover, the ‘Pneuma’ project was realised in full, made functional and tested.

| — | Discriminatory nature of the decision in question and infringement of the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Discriminatory nature of the decision in question and infringement of the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

---

(1)  OJ L 192, 28.7.2000, p. 1.

1

---