CELEX: C2007/269/67
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-436/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2007 in Case T-312/05 Commission of the European Communities v Efrosini Alexiadou

10.11.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 269/39
            
         Appeal brought on 14 September 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2007 in Case T-312/05 Commission of the European Communities v Efrosini Alexiadou
   
   (Case C-436/07 P)
   (2007/C 269/67)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triandafillou)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Evfrosini Alexiadou
   Form of order sought
   The appellant asks the Court to:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 in Case T-312/05 Commission of the European Communities v Alexiadou which was notified to the Commission on 18 July 2007;
            
         
               —
            
            
               uphold the Commission's claims in its action;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the general conditions of the contract (law of the parties) and in particular the provision concerning financial audit which refers to audit in a loose way as a mere possibility. Another provision which was relied upon of its own motion by the Court of First Instance does not even refer to audit, although it concerns defective performance of a contract. The requirement to carry out an audit thus proves to be independent of the contractual provision relied upon.
   In any event, financial audit could not be required if there was nothing to audit, since nobody is bound to do the impossible and contractual provisions must be construed in such a way as to ensure practical effectiveness.
   The principle of sound budgetary management requires that the Commission should not carry out audits without reason. The Court of First Instance excluded at the outset application of the principles of good faith and commercial usage which could have offered guidance in its interpretation.
   Since it gave judgment by default, the Court of First Instance cannot blame the Commission for not explaining some of its arguments (in particular the preceding argument above), without infringing the principle of judicial protection.