This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0065
Case T-65/15: Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Talanton v Commission
Case T-65/15: Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Talanton v Commission
Case T-65/15: Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Talanton v Commission
OJ C 138, 27.4.2015, p. 55–55
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.4.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 138/55 |
Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Talanton v Commission
(Case T-65/15)
(2015/C 138/72)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etairia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketigk kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (Talanton SA Business Consulting and Marketing Services) (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: K Damis, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
instruct an expert report, in order that there should be examined the reported finding in the audit report of the external auditor, which was wrongly accepted by the European Commission, that there is a ‘lack of alternative evidence to confirm the requested personnel costs’. That factor is of crucial importance to the outcome of the case, since the personnel costs represent the greater part of the eligible costs and incorporate all the indirect costs;· |
— |
declare, first, that the debit note No 3241414916 which was sent to the applicant on 10/12/2014 and in which the Commission requested the return of two hundred and seventy three thousand, five hundred and thirty five euros and 38 cents (EUR 2 73 535,38) for the agreement for the FP-7216088 POCEMON project on the basis of the erroneous and inaccurate audit report 11-ΒΑ135-006 is in breach of the Commission’s contractual obligations, and, second, that the costs which the applicant submitted within the framework of the agreement concerned are eligible costs and consequently the Commission is obliged to issue a credit note for one hundred and twenty nine thousand, seven hundred and sixty four euros and 38 cents (EUR 1 29 764,38). |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1. |
The first plea is based on the arbitration clause:
|
2. |
The second plea is based on the performance of a contract in good faith and the prohibition on the abusive application of contractual terms:
|