Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 23 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-138/05)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the company, Impetus Consultants, was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Triandafilou, assisted by N. Kostikas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    order the defendant to pay the amount of EUR 235, 655.21 comprising EUR 160, 380.35, by way of capital, and EUR 75, 274.86, in respect of interest for late payment, as from the due date on the basis of each debit note;

-    order the defendant to pay as from 15 March 2005 until full settlement the debt arising out of the 'COP 493 - Invite' contract daily interest in the amount of EUR 41.93; in regard to the debt arising out of the 'TR 1006 - Ausias' contract daily interest in the amount of EUR 1.66 and in regard to the 'V 2043 - Artis' contract daily interest of EUR 1.01;

-    order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community, represented by the European Commission, entered into three contracts with the defendant in the context of Community framework programmes for research and development. Those contracts were more specifically:

-    'COP 493 - Invite' ,which specifically concerned the carrying out of a project under the title 'telematics for internal navigation' and was to be implemented within 24 months as from 30 December 1994. The defendant was a member and the co-ordinator of the relevant group.

-    'TR 1006 - Ausias', which specifically concerned the carrying out of a project under the title 'Αdvanced telematic systems for integrated transport in conurbations' and was to be implemented within 23 months as from 30 December 1995. The defendant was a member of the relevant group.

-    'V 2043 - Artis', which concerned the carrying out of a project under the title 'Αdvanced telematic systems for road transport in Spain' and was to be implemented within 12 months as from 1 January 1992. The defendant was a member of the relevant group.

In all those cases it was provided that the Commission would make a financial contribution to the relevant project under the terms laid down in each agreement. In respect of each agreement the Commission paid to the defendant advances on its financial contribution.

Following financial checks, the Commission found that the defendant was using only a part of the monies paid over to it for the purposes of the relevant project. Specifically:

-    Under the 'COP 493 - Invite' contract the Commission paid to the defendant as the group coordinator an advance in the amount of EUR 257, 400. The defendant passed on to the other participants only the amount of EUR 79, 062.70 and retained the amount of EUR 178, 337.30 of which only the amount of EUR 42,000 was used for the actual programme. The Commission has issued a debit note in the amount of EUR 136, 037.30 against the defendant.

-    Under the 'TR 1006 - Ausias' contract the Commission paid to the group in respect of the period during which the defendant was a member of it an advance in the amount of EUR 78, 341.91. The Commission discovered that only the amount of EUR 63, 229. 63 had been used by the defendant for the actual programme and has issued a debit note in the amount of EUR 15, 112.28 against the defendant.

-    Under the 'V 2043 - Artis' contract the defendant, as a member of the relevant association, received from the Commission an advance in the amount of EUR 62, 621.86. The Commission adjudged that only the amount of EUR 53, 391. 09 had been used by the defendant for carrying out the actual programme and has issued a debit note in the amount of EUR 9, 320.77 against the defendant.

By its action the Commission seeks repayment of the abovementioned amounts owed, together with interest thereon, in accordance with the law applicable to each contract, that is to say, in the case of the first contract, Greek law and, in the case of the other two contracts, Spanish law.

____________