This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0154
Case T-154/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission
Case T-154/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission
Case T-154/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission
IO C 175, 10.6.2014, p. 46–46
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 07/03/2014
- Date lodged:
- 07/03/2014
- Author:
- Cúirt Ghinearálta
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Gréigis
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
10.6.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 175/46 |
Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission
(Case T-154/14)
2014/C 175/63
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
|
— |
Declare that the entire amount of EUR 185 664,10 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant in respect of the OASIS project and the entire amount of EUR 465 062,84 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant in respect of the PERFORM project constitute eligible costs; |
|
— |
Declare that the amount of EUR 1 824,05 which the Commission has not paid in respect of the OASIS project and the amount of EUR 637 117,17 which the Commission has not paid as a portion in respect of the PERFORM project constitute eligible costs and consequently the Commission is under an obligation to pay those sums to ΑΝΚΟ, and |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the contracts (a) 215 754 and (b) 215 952 for the performance of the (a) OASIS and (b) PERFORM projects respectively, under Article 272 TFEU.
In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it complied with its contractual obligations, the Commission, in breach of the abovementioned contracts, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs and refused to pay its outstanding portion. For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the rejection as constituting ineligible costs of almost all of the Commission’s portion in respect of the OASIS and PERFORM projects is contrary to the Commission’s contractual obligations to ΑΝΚΟ. Second, the applicant maintains that the attempt to recover almost all of those amounts is disproportionate and abusive.
