Action brought on 28 July 2010 - ELE.SI.A v Commission
(Case T-312/10)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Elettronica e sistemi per automazione (ELE.SI.A) SpA (Giudonia Montecelio, Italy) (represented by: S. Bariatti, P. Tomassi and P. Caprile, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
confirm and declare that ELESIA has properly complied with its contractual obligations;
confirm and declare that, by failing to pay the amount due in respect of ELESIA's activities and by requesting repayment of the amount already paid, the Commission has breached its contractual obligations;
accordingly, order the Commission to pay Euro 83 627.68, plus interest, in respect of the costs incurred by ELESIA for the purposes of the Project and which have not yet been reimbursed by the Commission;
accordingly, annul, revoke - if necessary, through the issuance of corresponding credit notes - or in any event declare unlawful the debit notes by which the Commission has requested repayment from ELESIA, and award damages accordingly;
in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The consortium, of which the applicant company in this case is coordinator, entered into a contract with the Commission for the realisation of the project 'I-Way, Intelligent co-operative system in cars for road safety', financed by funds allocated within the context of the 'Sixth Framework Programme for Technological Research and Development'.
As it formed the view that serious irregularities had been committed during the realisation of the project in question, the European Commission decided to rescind the contract.
The applicant maintains, first, that the Commission's conduct is in total breach of the relevant contractual provisions and of the applicable principles of law, such as those of equity, proportionality and good administration. Second, the applicant contends that, after it had correctly carried out all of its contractual obligations for almost the entire 36-month period provided for under the contract, the Commission has no intention of recognising any amount as due, on the basis, moreover, of an audit which is irregular in several respects, and notwithstanding the fact that the applicant cooperated fully in good faith throughout the contractual period and even thereafter.
In support of its contentions, the applicant submits, specifically, that it correctly and consistently carried out its contractual obligations, whereas, by contrast, the Commission breached Articles II.1.11, II.16.1, II.16.2 and II.29 of the General Contractual Conditions, as well as the applicant's rights of defence and the provisions contained in Regulation No 2185/96.
1