EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/193/58
Case T-205/05: Action brought on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-205/05: Action brought on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-205/05: Action brought on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities
OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 34–35
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
6.8.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 193/34 |
Action brought on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-205/05)
(2005/C 193/58)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics SA, established in Athens (Hellenic Republic), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
1) |
annul the decision of the Commission communicated to the applicant through a letter dated 3 March 2005, to issue a recovery order for an amount of 59 485 euros against the applicant related to the ‘eEBO’ project, the decision of the Commission communicated to the applicant through a letter dated 12 November 2004 by which the Commission decided to reimburse an amount of labour not exceeding 85 971 euros, as well as the decision of the Commission communicated to the applicant by letter dated 16 May 2003 to terminate the contract EDC-53007 eEBO/27873: eContent exposure and business opportunities. |
|
2) |
order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant was awarded a contract by the Commission relating to the project ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’ (eEBO). Some of the work for this contract was subcontracted by the applicant, even though subcontracting was not allowed. A technical verification was executed by the Commission and clarifications were requested on certain issues relating to the personnel used by the applicant. Following this evaluation, the Commission adopted the decision contested in the present case.
In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission made an evident error of assessment in that it failed to take into account that the eEBO-project was dependent on another e-content project, namely PICK, and that the contractor for the PICK project did not respect its obligations. The applicant also claims that the Commission erred in terminating the project as a whole.
Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the principles of good administration and transparency and did not eliminate certain conflicts of interest. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to act when the applicant indicated that, allegedly, the source of the malfunctioning of the project were the personnel relations between specific Commission officials and the two experts to which the applicant subcontracted part of the work.