CELEX: 62013TN0326
Language: en
Date: 2013-06-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-326/13: Action brought on 18 June 2013 — Commission v Thales développement et coopération

12.10.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 298/7
            
         Action brought on 18 June 2013 — Commission v Thales développement et coopération
   (Case T-326/13)
   2013/C 298/12
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Thales développement et coopération SAS (Vélizy-Villacoublay, France)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               order Thales to repay to the European Commission all the sums received under the NEMECEL and DREAMCAR contracts, namely, in relation to the NEMECEL contract, the principal sum of EUR 700 335,66 plus interest outstanding and, in relation to the DREAMCAR contract, the principal sum of EUR 812 821,43 plus interest outstanding;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order Thales to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   Following an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Commission is seeking, by the action brought under Article 272 TFEU, an order from the Court that the defendant repay all of the sums received by the defendant’s former subsidiary, SRTI (SRTI System, Industrial Process Department), a company that became first, SODETEG (Société d’Études Techniques et d’Entreprises Générales SA) then THALESEC (Thales Engineering and Consulting), in connection with two research contracts known as ‘NEMECEL’ and ‘DREAMCAR’.
   The Commission claims that the sums at issue were wrongly paid, following serious financial irregularities, non-compliance with contractual obligations and breaches of fundamental rules of law. The defendant’s subsidiary inter alia declared excessive costs by over-billing for hours not worked.