This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/271/44
Case T-312/05: Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E. Alexiadou
Case T-312/05: Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E. Alexiadou
Case T-312/05: Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E. Alexiadou
JO C 271, 29.10.2005, p. 22–23
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.10.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 271/22 |
Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E. Alexiadou
(Case T-312/05)
(2005/C 271/44)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties:
Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Dimitrios Triantafillou and Dimos Nikopoulos, lawyer)
Defendant(s): Effrosini Alexiadou
Form of order sought
The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:
|
— |
order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 26 068.11, corresponding to the principal sum owed of EUR 23 036.31 and the sum of EUR 3 031.80 owed by way of default interest from 1 March 2003 to 31 August 2005; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay to the Commission interest amounting to EUR 3.31 per day until the entire amount due has been paid in full; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded with the defendant, as member of a consortium, Contract No G1ST-CT-2002-50227-PLASMALEATHER concerning a specific research and technological development programme relating to cold plasma treatment for water-repellent leather.
The contract provided that the Commission would contribute financially to the proper performance of the project, by payment of a sum which would not exceed EUR 832 362. Within that framework the Commission paid to the defendant, through the coordinator of the consortium, an advance of EUR 23 036.31.
However, immediately after receipt of that sum the defendant declared to the coordinator that she had stopped the production of leather articles, had decided to move her business activities to a different line, could not guarantee successful conclusion of the project activities and considered that it would be better to leave the project at the beginning of all activities.
The defendant was repeatedly given notice to pay, but she did not return the amount of the advance although, as the coordinator has certified, she did not participate at all in the research and consequently did not use the advance for such a purpose.
By its action, the Commission seeks payment of the aforementioned sum owed and the interest due thereon.