Action brought on 7 October 2009 - Tecnoprocess v Delegation of the European Commission to Morocco and Others

(Case T-403/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tecnoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)

Defendants: Delegation of the European Commission to Morocco, Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Nigeria and Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Declare that the Delegation to Abuja, the Delegation to Rabat and the European Commission have been unjusfiably enriched.

Consequently, order the Delegation to Abuja, the Delegation to Rabat and the European Community jointly and severally to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 114 069.94, together with interest until payment in full, or such other amount as the Court of First Instance may find to be appropriate, together with interest on that amount until payment in full.

Order that the Delegation to Abuja, the Delegation to Rabat and the European Commission be jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings, which is the same party as the applicant in Case T-264/09 Tecnoprocess v Commission and Delegation of the European Commission to the Kingdom of Morocco and in Case T-367/09 Tecnoprocess v Commission and Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Nigeria, claims that in the performance of the contracts concluded with the Moroccan and Nigerian authorities that are the subject-matter of those cases the abovementioned Delegations and the European Commission have unjustifiably refused to enter into negotiations for the settlement of a number of issues that arise in relation to the execution of the contracts in question; and that notwithstanding that the applicant has, on several occasions, proposed to the Community institutions that the gains and losses arising under those contracts should be offset.

The result of that state of affairs is that the Delegations and the Commission have unjustifiably withheld payment of very significant sums which should have been transferred to the applicant, thereby giving rise to a situation which constitutes unjustified enrichment.

____________