18.5.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/21

Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

(Case T-106/13)

2013/C 141/38

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonimi Emporiki Etairia Parokhis Ipiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

declare that the company’s exclusion by the European Commission from participation in the ARTreat programme constitutes a breach of the Commission’s contractual obligations in the light of the principles of proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations, and order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of three hundred and forty-three thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight euro and eighty-eight cent (EUR 343 828,88) in respect of the payments which are owed by the Commission for the ARTreat project, together with interest from the date on which the present action is lodged;

—

order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of eighty-nine thousand nine hundred and thirty-three euro (EUR 89 933,16) as compensation for the financial damage and the harm to its professional reputation that the applicant has suffered because of misuse of the Commission’s powers and breach of confidentiality, together with compensatory interest from 14 June 2012 until delivery of judgment in the present case and interest for late payment from delivery of judgment in the present case until settlement in full;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant brings together two actions.

First, an action, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, in respect of liability of the Commission under Contract FP7-224297 concerning the carrying out of the project ‘Multi-level patient-specific artery and artherogenesis model for outcome prediction, decision support treatment, and virtual hand-on training (ARTreat)’. In particular, the applicant submits that, although it duly performed its contractual obligations in full, the Commission, without being so entitled and in breach of the contract and of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, suspended payment to it.

Second, an action to establish non-contractual liability of the Commission, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. In particular, the applicant submits that the Commission, by reason of its unlawful conduct, has harmed the applicant’s professional reputation.