Action brought on 24 October 2011 - Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-552/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

uphold the present action;

annul the contested debit note;

take account of the applicant's submissions if it holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 17 June 2011 are to be refunded;

annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to the third instalment which has not been paid;

set off any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for five years;

hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision which is contained in debit note No 3241109207 of 9 September 2011 and relates to the applicant's participation in the 'WARD IN HAND' research project No 510743.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

-    misuse of power by the European Commission, in so far as it proceeded to a legally fictional equation of the non-delivery of time sheets with the non-delivery of items to be delivered, as conduct in breach of contract;

-    absence of a statement of reasons in the contested debit note and infringement of the general principle of law that an unfavourable measure must incorporate a statement of reasons in order for the legality of the reasoning to be reviewed, since the contested debit note does not state any reasons;

-    failure to take account of the evidence;

error of law and failure to state reasons, because the defendant took no account of the applicant's actual submissions and rejected them in a wrongful manner and without stating reasons;

infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, because the defendant wrongfully failed to pay the applicant the final instalment of the programme and nullified all its research work, five years after the programme's closure.

____________