Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008TN0460

    Case T-460/08: Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Commission v Acentro Turismo

    SL C 313, 6.12.2008, p. 53–53 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.12.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 313/53


    Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Commission v Acentro Turismo

    (Case T-460/08)

    (2008/C 313/94)

    Language of the case: Italian

    Parties

    Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu, A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)

    Defendant: Acentro Turismo SpA (Milan, Italy)

    Form of order sought

    order Acentro Turismo SpA to pay the sum of EUR 13 497,46 by way of capital;

    order that company to pay the sum of EUR 2 278,55 in default interest payable up to the date of lodging of the present application, and default interest which will be payable after the date of lodging of this application up to the date of the actual payment of the capital, to be quantified ultimately on the basis of the interest rate established by Italian law;

    order that company to pay default interest on the aforesaid interest payable up to the date of lodging of the present application, to be quantified ultimately on the basis of the interest rate established by Italian law;

    order that company to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    By the present application the European Commission, as representative of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), asks the Court to order the company incorporated under Italian law, Acentro Turismo SpA, to pay the sum of EUR 13 497,46, plus default interest, owed on the basis of the rules relating to performance laid down by contract No 349-90-04 TL ISP I for the provision of services, concluded in 1990 and intended to give that company the functions of travel agent on the Ispra site.

    The Commission submits in that regard that Acentro did not honour two invoices, issued by the Commission itself on the basis of Article 8 of the contested contract, and that the existence of that credit is sufficiently proven with regard to the content of that contract and the credit in question is therefore irrefutable, liquid and collectable.


    Top