CELEX: 62018TN0244
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-244/18: Action brought on 20 April 2018 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

201806150881955092018/C 231/402442018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180420313222Case T-244/18: Action brought on 20 April 2018 — Synergy Hellas v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3120120180420EN0040312322Action brought on 20 April 2018 — Synergy Hellas v Commission
   (Case T-244/18)2018/C 231/40Language of the case: Greek
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: d.d.Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etairia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            declare the action admissible;
         
      
            —
         
         
            annul Commission Decision C(2018) 1115 final of 19 February 2018 on the recovery of the sum of EUR 76282,08, together with interest, from ‘d.d.Synergy HELLAS ANONYMI EMPORIKI ETAIRIA PAROCHIS YPIRESION PLIROFORIKIS’;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the European Commission to pay the costs.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 (
                  1
               ):
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     the refusal by the Commission to accept the legitimate request to grant an additional period within which to make payment, despite the fact that 73 % of the capital has already been repaid, including all interest, and even though the personal security requested by the Commission for the entire amount originally due, together with interest, has been constituted, is contrary to the provisions of that Article;
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     the Commission’s argument concerning the substantive legality of the contested measure is unfounded;
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the contested decision.
                  
               
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging infringement of, and/or exceeding the limits of its discretion and infringement of the principle of ‘good administration’
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion when it adopted the contested decision by disregarding essential evidence submitted by the applicant and by adopting solutions likely to lead to the liquidation of the applicant.
                  
               
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     the contested decision does not constitute a measure necessary to achieve the objective pursued, in so far as the applicant continues to pay and in so far as it imposes an excessive burden on the applicant and presents a substantive threat to its very existence.
                  
               
      (
         1
      )	Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).