Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62011CN0647

Case C-647/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Dimos Peramatos against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 12 October 2011 in Case T-312/07 Dimos Peramatos v European Commission

OJ C 49, 18.2.2012, p. 18–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.2.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/18

Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Dimos Peramatos against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 12 October 2011 in Case T-312/07 Dimos Peramatos v European Commission

(Case C-647/11 P)

2012/C 49/30

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama) (represented by: G. Gerapetritis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court inasmuch as it dismisses the action which sought cessation of any obligation on the part of the appellant to refund sums paid within the framework of the project LIFE97/ENV/GR/000380 or, in the alternative, amendment of the contested measure so as to oblige the appellant to pay EUR 93 795,32, the sum determined for accounting purposes as the ineligible expenditure, as the Commission itself acknowledged;

—

refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination;

—

order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs including the costs in respect of its lawyers.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its appeal:

1.

Erroneous interpretation both of the terms of the subsidy agreement concluded between Dimos Peramatos and the European Commission on 17 July 1997 under No C(97) 1997/final/29 in the context of performance of action falling within the LIFE Programme and of the agreement’s regulatory framework (Regulation No 1973/92), in so far as the General Court considered that the municipality’s obligation to plant trees, as resulting from the subsidy agreement, was performed deficiently.

2.

Erroneous interpretation and infringement of the principles of good administration and of legal certainty on account of deficient reasoning in the judgment under appeal in the section concerning the obligation to state reasons for unfavourable administrative acts adopted by institutions of the European Union.
Top