Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2006/326/159

    Case T-334/06: Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Commission v Northumbrian Water

    OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 78–78 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.12.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 326/78


    Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Commission v Northumbrian Water

    (Case T-334/06)

    (2006/C 326/159)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, as agent)

    Defendant: Northumbrian Water Ltd (Durham, United Kingdom)

    Form of order sought

    Order the defendant, Northumbrian Water Ltd.:

    to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 561 732,65, being the principal amount of EUR 443 307,67 together with EUR 10 922,84 as late payment interest calculated at the rate of 4.75 % on the original sum owed (EUR 456 159,71) for the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2002, EUR 99 795,87 as late payment interest calculated on that original sum at the rate of 6.75 % for the period between 1 January 2003 and 28 March 2006 and EUR 17 790,00 as late payment interest calculated on the new principal sum at the rate of 6.75 % for the period between 29 March 2006 and 31 October 2006;

    to pay EUR 81.98 per day by way of interest from 1 November 2006 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full;

    to pay the costs of the present action.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The European Community, represented by the Commission, entered in 1997 into a contract with among others the defendant for the implementation of the project ‘Generation of electricity by the LR-gasification of dried undigested sewage sludge’ under the Community activities in the field of non-nuclear energy (1).

    In 2000, the defendant informed the Commission that it had decided to terminate the contract because of increased costs. The Commission assessed the work done and considered that it corresponded to the design phase of the project. The Commission tried therefore without success to recover the advance payments received by the defendant exceeding the foreseen amount for the design phase, i.e. the first phase of the project.

    In support of its application, the Commission submits that the General Conditions of the contract do not oblige it to pay more for the design phase than the amount provided for in the contract and that a transfer of the budgetary amounts between categories of expenditure is not possible between the different phases of the project.


    (1)  Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) (OJ L 334, p. 87).


    Top