This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/269/104
Case T-340/07: Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Case T-340/07: Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Case T-340/07: Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
SL C 269, 10.11.2007, p. 57–58
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.11.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 269/57 |
Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
(Case T-340/07)
(2007/C 269/104)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
Order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 172 588,62 which constitute unpaid eligible costs incurred by the applicant in the framework of contract No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the symbolic amount of EUR 1 000 corresponding to the damage suffered at its fame and goodwill; |
|
— |
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
This application, pursuant to Articles 238 EC and 235 EC, seeks compensation for damages caused by the decision of the Commission of 16 May 2003 to terminate the contract No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 signed with the Commission, concerning the project ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’ (‘EEBO’) to be carried out in the framework of the multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote linguistic diversity in the information society (2001-2005) and involving M. Fischer and M. Marthinsen in the implementation of the project as external consultants.
In support of its claims the applicant argues that the contracting authority (DG INFSO) decision to terminate the contract contains evident errors of assessment resulting in failure to fulfil its contractual obligations. Moreover, it is submitted that the contested decision was taken in violation of the principles of good administration and transparency and that on several occasions, specific Commission agents failed to eliminate alleged conflicts of interest. In light of the above, the applicant claims to be entitled to compensation for the services rendered as well as to eligible costs incurred in the framework of the execution of the contract including interest from the date these amounts became due.