This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0168
Case T-168/10: Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Commission v SEMEA
Case T-168/10: Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Commission v SEMEA
Case T-168/10: Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Commission v SEMEA
IO C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 48–48
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.6.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 161/48 |
Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Commission v SEMEA
(Case T-168/10)
(2010/C 161/76)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, Agent and E. Bouttier, lawyer)
Defendant: Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) (Millau, France)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
order the société d’économie mixte de l’Aveyron, in the person of its ad hoc agent, to pay the applicant the principal sum of EUR 41,012, plus interest outstanding since 10 March 1992 or, in the alternative, from 27 April 1993; |
|
— |
order the capitalisation of interest; |
|
— |
order the SEMEA to pay EUR 5 000 in respect of wrongful obstruction of legal process; |
|
— |
order the SEMEA to pay the costs of this case. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The European Community, represented by the Commission, concluded on 6 July 1990 with the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (the Aveyron semi-public installations company) (SEMEA) a grant contract concerning a local development action consisting in the performance of work for the preparation and launching of a Centre Européen d’Entreprise Locale (European Local Enterprise Centre) in Millau.
The Commission claims that under that contract, the SEMEA undertook to perform various services and to account for them to the Commission by submitting periodical reports, the Commission for its part undertaking to contribute financially to the performance of those works up to a maximum of ECU 135,000, not exceeding 50 % of the justified costs of the works.
In May 1991, the SEMEA requested from the Commission that that contract might be performed by another structure, the Association CEI12, which the Commission accepted, specifying that that agreement did not exempt the SEMEA from its obligations, and the SEMEA thus confirmed that it would guarantee the proper performance of the services provided for in the contract.
Following a check on the state of progress of the works, it was found that the total eligible expenditure was ECU 187,977 and thus, that the Commission’s contribution was to be set at 50 % of that amount, that is, at ECU 93,988.
In so far as the SEMEA has already received ECU 135,000 in respect of the contract, this action seeks to claim from the SEMEA the recovery of the overpayment.