Order — ECLI:EU:T:2011:410
Date: 2011-08-31
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Research and technological development
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Greece

Action brought on 17 September 2010 - IEM Erga - Erevnes Meletes Perivallontos & Khorotaxias v Commission (Case T-435/10) Language of the case: Greek Parties Applicant: IEM Erga - Erevnes Meletes Perivallontos & Khorotaxias A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Sofokleous, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the preparatory act of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research of 7 May 2010 notifying the applicant of the decision to issue it with a demand for payment; annul demand for payment (debit note) No 3241004968 of the European Commission; order the Commission to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the preparatory act of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research of 7 May 2010 notifying it of the decision to issue it with a demand for payment and the annulment of demand for payment (debit note) No 3241004968 of 14 July 2010 which was issued under Contract FAIR-CT98-9544. In support of its pleas, the applicant puts forward the following grounds: lack of lawful basis and lack of competence inasmuch as the contested measures, which were adopted in the context of Contract FAIR-CT98-9544, are administrative measures adopted without a lawful basis and without competence, because that contract, which is governed, pursuant to Article 10 thereof, exclusively by Greek law, does not grant the Commission the right to determine unilaterally and recover autonomously its claims arising from the contract; lack of lawful reasoning, lack of proof and denial of the Commission's assertions inasmuch as, as is shown by the General Court's judgment in Case T-7/05 and the invoices issued by the applicant for the supply of services, the sums which the applicant received from Parthenon A.E. in respect of those invoices constituted part of its remuneration for the supply of the services set out in the invoices and not an advance payment which Parthenon A.E. had received from the Commission as the applicant's representative; conrtradictory reasoning in the contested measures; lack of lawful reasoning and lack of proof inasmuch as the arguments by which the Commission justifies the contested measures are not demonstrated either by the grounds of the General Court's judgment in Case T-7/05 Commission v Parthenon A.E. or by the invoices adduced before the General Court or the other evidence. ____________