ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
12 December 2013(1)
(Rectification of an order)
In Case T-554/11,
Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, and N. Theologou, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by A. Bordes and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to settle sums allegedly payable and requiring repayment of the sum of EUR 281 270.00 paid in the framework of the implementation of the contract EuropeAid/124378/D/SER/TN (No 2007/145-464), communicated to the applicant by letter dated 8 August 2011 (C&F/2011/D/001101), and also of debit note 3241108036, received by the applicant on 17 August 2011, and of all the Commission’s related decisions,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of A. Dittrich (Rapporteur), President, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, M. Prek, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 On 1 October 2013, the Court issued an order in Case T-554/11.
2 In accordance with Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties having been given an opportunity to lodge their written observations pursuant to Article 84(2) of those rules, it is necessary to rectify the clerical mistake found in paragraph 44 of that order.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
hereby orders:
The text of paragraph 44 should read
« Accordingly, there is no reason to conclude that the Commission acted in the present case in the exercise of its prerogatives as a public authority when it refrained from paying the applicant the additional payments demanded. On the contrary, that refusal forms an inseparable part of the contractual relations between the applicant and the Tunisian Ministry of Justice. The second part of the applicant’s first head of claim must therefore also be declared inadmissible owing to the absence of a challengeable act. »
instead of
« Accordingly, there is no reason to conclude that the Commission acted in the present case in the exercise of its prerogatives as a public authority when it refrained from paying the applicant the additional payments demanded. On the contrary, that refusal forms an inseparable part of the contractual relations between the applicant and the Tunisian Ministry of Justice. The second part of the applicant’s first head of claim must therefore also be declared admissible owing to the absence of a challengeable act. ».
Luxembourg, 12 December 2013.