Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:97
Date: 2010-03-18
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Single Judge
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Greece

Action brought on 31 May 2007 - KEK DIAVLOS v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-190/07) Language of the case: Greek Parties Applicant: KEK DIAVLOS (Peristeri, Attiki (Greece)) (represented by: D. Khatsimikhalis, lawyer) Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Form of order sought annulment of Decision 23/II/2006 of the Commission of the European Communities and any other related act and/or decision of the Commission of the European Communities on the grounds set out; an order that the Commission of the European Communities pay the costs and our lawyer's fees. Pleas in law and main arguments This action is brought against Decision E(2006) 465 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 23 February 2006 requiring the applicant to pay the basic sum of EUR 71 981 in repayment of the advance received by KEK KSINI 1in respect of funding under the PRINCE information programme for Europe's citizens, together with interest, on the ground of unjustified delay and lack of proof of completion of the project. The applicant maintains that the decision in question is unfounded, incorrect, improper and contains insufficient and incorrect reasoning. In contrast to the Commission's findings which, in the applicant's view are incorrect and unjustifiable, the applicant maintains that it complied fully with its obligations under the funding contract which it signed in order to participate in the programme in question and that, in the cases in which delays were recorded because of objective difficulties, the applicant informed the competent bodies of the European Union in good time. The applicant also claims that KEK KSINI never received the remainder of the amount of the funding after receipt of the original advance of EUR 71 981, although it considers that the work performed and the expenditure incurred in connection with the above programme exceed that sum. Accordingly the applicant maintains that the contested decision should be annulled; it was issued as a result of erroneous information given by the staff of the company to the bodies of the European Union which carried out on-the-spot checks, since, because of a change in the staff who were in charge of the programme, it was not initially possible for new employees to be fully briefed so as to gather all the required information and give full replies directly. ____________ 1 - Pursuant to the amendment to the company's articles on 12 April 2006, the company KEK KSINI was renamed KEK DIAVLOS.