23.11.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/50

—

uphold the present action;

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (registered under No 575925) of 9 July 2013 in Case Τ-552/11;

—

hear and rule on the substance of the present case, alternatively refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to examine the substance of the case;

—

dismiss the counter claim of the European Commission in that all the relevant forms of order raised at first instance are wholly inadmissible and in any event unfounded;

—

uphold the action brought on 24 October 2011 by the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ for the annulment of the debit note No 3241109207 issued on 9 September 2011;

—

annul the contested debit note No 3241109207 for the sum of EUR 83 001,09;

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

1.

Error of law, in the failure to recognise that the debit note produces legal effects and as a result misapplication of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court, in holding that the European Commission did not exercise powers which it holds as a public authority and that the purpose of the debit note resides in the exercise of rights acquired by the Commission from the provisions of the contract committed an error of law.

2.

Error of law, in the incorrect classification under the legal concept of ‘undue payment’. The General Court’s interpretation of the contract in respect of the meaning of undue payment is incorrect and wholly improper.

3.

Infringement of the fundamental principles of European Union law in that the arguments of ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ in relation to the default interest rate were not taken into account. The General Court unlawfully determined the date when interest would start to run as the date following the date for payment stated in the debit note.

4.

Application of the incorrect legal criteria in the assessment by the General Court of the evidence. The General Court incorrectly called into question the working hours of the persons employed.

5.

Error of law and erroneous classification of the facts in the basic premise. The General Court did not make a correct legal classification of the contested facts in respect of the nature and function of time sheets.

6.

Manifest legal errors of assessment in respect of the procedural rules which safeguard the rights of the defence and equality of arms between the European Commission and the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’. The General Court erroneously held that the submitted worksheets did not meet the requirements imposed by the provisions of the contract and consequently determined that they were to be rejected as a means of proof and, further, that the submitted correspondence was not adequate evidence of the hours of work which were in fact provided by the persons employed.

7.

Error of law in the assessment of the legal nature of the methods for the calculation of costs (Cost Models).

8.

Error of law in respect of the meaning of misuse of power by the European Commission.

9.

Erroneous classification of the facts in the basic premise, which leads to the erroneous judicial ruling on rejection of the argument of the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ on the inadequate statement of reasons in the contested debit note.

10.

Error of law in the assessment of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The General Court erred in not holding that the European Commission, in breach of the protection of legitimate expectations, nullified the entire research work of the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’, validating its formal deviations from the allegedly correct procedure by pursuit of the entirety of the sums paid.