CELEX: C2006/190/39
Language: en
Date: 2006-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-91/06: Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Nikolaos Theofilopoulos v Commission of the European Communities

12.8.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 190/22
            
         Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Nikolaos Theofilopoulos v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-91/06)
   (2006/C 190/39)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Nikolaos Theofilopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Miliarakis, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:
   
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to return letters of guarantee Nos 81928/6.12.1995, 819837/6.12.1995, 819838/6.12.1995, 822611/22.12.1995 and 830671/17.3.1996 of the Tamio Sintaxion Mikhanikon and Ergolipton Dimosion Ergon (TSMEDE);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay EUR 202 697,72 or, in the alternative, EUR 199 219,69 in respect of material damage arising up to February 2006;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay EUR 100 000 in respect of non-material damage;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant states that, following his own guarantee, the five letters of guarantee were issued by TSMEDE for the companies ‘Impetus EPE’ and ‘Impetus AEVE’, on which he is President and Managing Director. Those letters of guarantee were lodged by the above companies with the Commission in connection with contracts which they had entered into with the Commission. The applicant maintains that the Commission unlawfully and culpably refused to return those letters of guarantee, although it had no reason to retain them. He considers that that unlawful and culpable conduct of the Commission's bodies justifies this application, since he himself is required to pay TSMEDE the amounts in respect of which those letters were issued.