# C_2017168EN.01003001.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/30

---

Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Printeos v Commission

(Case T-201/17)

(2017/C 168/39)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU or, alternatively, the first paragraph of Article 226 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Commission to pay:






  (a) | financial compensation corresponding to the compensatory interest on the sum of EUR 4 729 000 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, for the period between 9 March 2015 and 1 February 2017, which results in an amount of EUR 184 592,95 or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU or, alternatively, the first paragraph of Article 226 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Commission to pay:

(a)

financial compensation corresponding to the compensatory interest on the sum of EUR 4 729 000 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, for the period between 9 March 2015 and 1 February 2017, which results in an amount of EUR 184 592,95 or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and

| (b) | default interest on the amount of compensatory interest under the preceding subparagraph (a) for the period between 1 February 2017 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph in compliance with a judgment upholding the present action, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

default interest on the amount of compensatory interest under the preceding subparagraph (a) for the period between 1 February 2017 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph in compliance with a judgment upholding the present action, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate;

| — | In the alternative, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the Commission Decision of 26 January 2017, consisting in the repayment to the applicant only of the principal amount of the fine wrongly paid by it in complying with the Envelopes decision excluding all interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the Commission Decision of 26 January 2017, consisting in the repayment to the applicant only of the principal amount of the fine wrongly paid by it in complying with the Envelopes decision excluding all interest;

| — | In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present proceedings, the applicant brings, principally, an action for damages seeking financial compensation equivalent to the interest which the Commission ought to have paid it when repaying it the principal amount of the fine wrongly paid in complying with Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) (‘the Envelopes decision’), after that decision was annulled by the judgment of the Court of 13 December 2016, in Case T-95/15 Printeos S.A. and Others v Commission (‘the Printeos judgment’). In the alternative, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2017, by which its claim for the abovementioned interest was dismissed.

Printeos S.A. and Others

Commission

Printeos

| 1. | In support of its action for damages, the applicant submits that the claim for financial compensation is based on the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, since the Commission failed to implement the Printeos judgment in full, in not paying it the relevant interest, or, alternatively, on the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, for the damage caused by the Envelopes decision and the failure to implement the Printeos judgment in full.
  The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission’s unlawful conduct had no legal basis because 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), relied upon by the Commission in its decision of 26 January 2017, had already been repealed, and because Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1) must be considered contrary to Article 266 TFEU, Article 340 TFEU and Articles 41(3) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In support of its action for damages, the applicant submits that the claim for financial compensation is based on the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, since the Commission failed to implement the Printeos judgment in full, in not paying it the relevant interest, or, alternatively, on the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, for the damage caused by the Envelopes decision and the failure to implement the Printeos judgment in full.

Printeos

Printeos

The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission’s unlawful conduct had no legal basis because 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), relied upon by the Commission in its decision of 26 January 2017, had already been repealed, and because Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1) must be considered contrary to Article 266 TFEU, Article 340 TFEU and Articles 41(3) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | In support of its alternative application, seeking annulment, the applicant submits that the legal basis on which the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2017 is based had been repealed, was not applicable and, in any event, had to be considered unlawful, a plea of illegality also being raised in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In support of its alternative application, seeking annulment, the applicant submits that the legal basis on which the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2017 is based had been repealed, was not applicable and, in any event, had to be considered unlawful, a plea of illegality also being raised in that regard.

---