CELEX: 62018TN0195
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-195/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Talanton v Commission

201806010031915492018/C 211/281952018TC21120180618EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180316222321Case T-195/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Talanton v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2112018EN2210120180316EN0028221232Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Talanton v Commission
   (Case T-195/18)2018/C 211/28Language of the case: Greek
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Talanton, Anonimi Emporiki — Simvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etairia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (Palaio Faliro, Grecia) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            Order an expert report on the deficiencies in the inspection carried out on behalf of the defendant;
         
      
            —
         
         
            Establish, first, that (a) the debit note 3241801228, sent to the applicant on 15 January 2018, by means of which the defendant requests the payment of EUR 481835,56, in respect of works contract FP7-215952 PERFORM, based on the conclusions of audit inspection 11-ΒΑ135-006, constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations, given that the eligible costs for the contract in question amount to EUR 605217, in respect of which the Union’s support amounts to EUR 490711, and that the applicant must reimburse to the defendant the amount of EUR 21171, and not the amount of EUR 481835,56, and, (b) the debit note 3241801229, sent to the applicant on 15 January 2018, and in which the defendant requests payment of EUR 29694,10by way of compensation, constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, based on performance of the contract in good faith and the prohibition on the abusive application of contractual terms:
            the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principle of good faith, in so far as the audit inspection provided for was carried out unlawfully by a third party who is not related to the staff of the contractor appointed by the defendant, nor to its expressly approved subcontractors, in respect of whom, during the inspection, issues of impartiality were raised, and acted wrongfully.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law based on the arbitration clause:
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     the applicant adduced sufficient alternative evidence which includes sworn statements, relevant letters from the applicant’s staff, documents produced during the inspection, which were at no time refuted, and which were not taken into account by the defendant;
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     the applicant sets out in detail thirty-nine reasons why the inspection report is inaccurate, deficient, unreliable and leads to incorrect conclusions.