CELEX: C2001/200/109
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-96/01: Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Rodolfos Maslias against the European Parliament

C 200/58                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
2001 by INNOVA — Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Svilup-                  its obligation to pay the grants due in connection with the Una
po Sostenibile, established in Calatafimi, Italy, represented by         Festa per Aristofane project by reason of non-performance —
Denis Waelbroeck and Jennifer Waldron, Lawyers.                          which is not admitted — of obligations relating to another
                                                                         project. Nor can the suspension of payment be seen as a penalty
                                                                         within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
                                                                         2988/95 (3).
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance, should:
                                                                         Finally, neither of the contracts provides for set-off and set-off
—     In the first place,                                                is not authorised by any provision governing the programmes
                                                                         concerned.
      —     Order the Commission to pay the grant which it
            undertook to pay under the contract concluded on             In support of its claim for annulment, the applicant claims,
            28 January 2000 in relation to the Una Festa per             inter alia, that the decision is illegal, in that it is ultra vires,
            Aristofane project,                                          lacks a proper statement of reasons, infringes the applicant’s
                                                                         rights of defence and infringes the principle of proportionality.
      —     Order the Commission to pay interest on that sum;
                                                                         (1) OJ 1999 C 163, p. 3.
—     In the alternative,                                                (2) Based on Decision 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                             of the Council of 14 February 2000 establishing the Culture 2000
                                                                             Programme (OJ 2000 C 63, p. 1).
      —     Annul the Commission’s decision to suspend pay-              (3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
            ments in respect of the second and final phases of               1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
            the grant contract in relation to the Una Festa per              interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
            Aristofane project, notified to INNOVA by letter
            from Mrs Efterpi Verigaki of 25 January 2001,
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Rodolfos Maslias
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in suppport
                                                                                         against the European Parliament
                                                                                                    (Case T-96/01)
In June 1999 the Commission published a call for tenders (1) for
experimental events under the ‘Culture 2000’ programme (2). In
December 1999 the Commission approved a project drawn                                             (2001/C 200/109)
up by the applicant which provided for the organisation of an
event entitled Una Festa per Aristofane the purpose of which
was to spread and increase young people’s awareness of their                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
common European heritage.
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
After receiving the first part of the grant, the applicant sent the      4 May 2001 by Rodolfos Maslias, official of the European
Commission a request for payment of the second instalment                Parliament, represented by Professor Kharis Tagaras, Lawyer,
and, later, for payment of the balance of the financial assistance       Sagia Chambers, Likavittou 5, Athens 106 72.
granted to the project. In reply the Commission informed the
applicant that the final payment had been blocked because of             The applicant claims that the Court should:
an order for recovery of a larger sum from the applicant. That
order relate to another contract between the parties, which              —     annul:
had been terminated by the Commission. The applicant
instituted proceedings before the Belgian courts to have the                   (1) the decision of the defendant of 20 October 2000
Commission’s decision to terminate the contract annulled.                            to stop unilaterally (or, in the alternative, not to allow
                                                                                     at all) the exchange of officials of 11 September
                                                                                     2000 with the Greek Ministry of Culture (on the
                                                                                     basis of which the applicant, as an official of the
The applicant claims that the Commission is in breach of its                         defendant, was exchanged with an official of the
contractual and legislative obligations. The contracts are                           Ministry of Culture);
separate and non-performance of obligations under one con-
tract cannot justify the suspension of obligations arising from                (2) the decision of the defendant not to pay the
the other. No provision of either contract or of the regulations                     applicant his rightful remuneration for the period
governing those contracts allows the Commission to suspend                           from 16 September 2000 to 15 November 2000;
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 200/59
     (3) the implied rejection by the defendant of the admin-         Grounds for annulment and main arguments
          istrative complaint submitted by the applicant on
          5 December 2000 against the contested decisions             The applicant alleges that the defendant:
          by the defendant referred to at (1) and (2) above;          — has infringed Article 62 of the Staff Regulations, which
                                                                           forms the basis of the entitlement of Community officials
                                                                           to remuneration;
     (4) all other related enforceable measures of the
                                                                      — has infringed the provisions concerning exchanges of
          defendant;
                                                                           European Parliament and national officials;
                                                                      — has offended against the principles of good administration
—    order the defendant in any event to pay the costs.                    and of the protection of legitimate expectations.