Action br21 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-771/14)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

declare that the sum of EUR 296 149.77, which the Commission paid to the applicant in respect of the DOC@HAND project, constitutes eligible costs and that accordingly the applicant is under no obligation to repay that sum as unduly paid; and

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the agreement No 508015 for the performance of the DOC@HAND project, under Article 272 TFEU. In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it performed its contractual obligations, the Commission, contrary to the terms of that agreement, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs.For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the Commission relies on wholly unfounded and in any event

s.Pleas in law and main argumentsThis action concerns the liability of the Commission under the agreement No 508015 for the performance of the DOC@HAND project, under Article 272 TFEU. In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it performed its contractual obligations, the Commission, contrary to the terms of that agreement, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs.For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the Commission relies on wholly unfounded and in any event unproven grounds in order to reject almost all the costs incurred by ANKO as being ineligible and to seek the repayment of the sum paid to ΑΝΚΟ in respect of the DOC@HAND project. The applicant maintains, second, that the Commission, in rejecting 99.59% of the contribution it is obliged to pay, because that allegedly did not correspond to eligible costs, which the applicant incurred for the requ