CELEX: 62016TN0141
Language: en
Date: 2016-04-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-141/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM

30.5.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/39
            
         Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM
   (Case T-141/16)
   (2016/C 191/51)
   Language of the case: Greek
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune)
   
      Defendant: IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE (Athens, Greece)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 105 416,47, together with default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations on 1 July 2010 (2 %) plus 1 %, that is to say, at a total rate of 3 %, calculated from 6 July 2010 until the day on which that sum has been paid in full, less EUR 30 208 (which was paid by way of set-off on 4 September 2010);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The present action, brought before the General Court pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeks delivery of a judgment ordering the defendant to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 75 208,47, together with interest, in relation to contract FAIR-CT98-9544 for the project entitled ‘Development of a new process in fruit cleansing and peeling’.
   The European Commission pleads, as the principal legal basis, breach of the defendant’s contractual obligations. It submits in particular that the sum which was paid to the defendant pursuant to the contract at issue was not used to carry out any work relating to the contract and that the defendant has not adduced any relevant documentary evidence. In the alternative, the European Commission puts forward a claim of unjust enrichment of the defendant, as provided for in Articles 904 and 908 of the Civil Code.