You are on page 1of 2

C 200/58 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14.7.

2001

2001 by INNOVA — Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Svilup- its obligation to pay the grants due in connection with the Una
po Sostenibile, established in Calatafimi, Italy, represented by Festa per Aristofane project by reason of non-performance —
Denis Waelbroeck and Jennifer Waldron, Lawyers. which is not admitted — of obligations relating to another
project. Nor can the suspension of payment be seen as a penalty
within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
2988/95 (3).
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance, should:

Finally, neither of the contracts provides for set-off and set-off


— In the first place, is not authorised by any provision governing the programmes
concerned.
— Order the Commission to pay the grant which it
undertook to pay under the contract concluded on In support of its claim for annulment, the applicant claims,
28 January 2000 in relation to the Una Festa per inter alia, that the decision is illegal, in that it is ultra vires,
Aristofane project, lacks a proper statement of reasons, infringes the applicant’s
rights of defence and infringes the principle of proportionality.
— Order the Commission to pay interest on that sum;
(1) OJ 1999 C 163, p. 3.
— In the alternative, (2) Based on Decision 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 14 February 2000 establishing the Culture 2000
Programme (OJ 2000 C 63, p. 1).
— Annul the Commission’s decision to suspend pay- (3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
ments in respect of the second and final phases of 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
the grant contract in relation to the Una Festa per interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
Aristofane project, notified to INNOVA by letter
from Mrs Efterpi Verigaki of 25 January 2001,

— Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Rodolfos Maslias


Contentions and principal arguments adduced in suppport
against the European Parliament

(Case T-96/01)
In June 1999 the Commission published a call for tenders (1) for
experimental events under the ‘Culture 2000’ programme (2). In
December 1999 the Commission approved a project drawn (2001/C 200/109)
up by the applicant which provided for the organisation of an
event entitled Una Festa per Aristofane the purpose of which
was to spread and increase young people’s awareness of their (Language of the case: Greek)
common European heritage.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
After receiving the first part of the grant, the applicant sent the 4 May 2001 by Rodolfos Maslias, official of the European
Commission a request for payment of the second instalment Parliament, represented by Professor Kharis Tagaras, Lawyer,
and, later, for payment of the balance of the financial assistance Sagia Chambers, Likavittou 5, Athens 106 72.
granted to the project. In reply the Commission informed the
applicant that the final payment had been blocked because of The applicant claims that the Court should:
an order for recovery of a larger sum from the applicant. That
order relate to another contract between the parties, which — annul:
had been terminated by the Commission. The applicant
instituted proceedings before the Belgian courts to have the (1) the decision of the defendant of 20 October 2000
Commission’s decision to terminate the contract annulled. to stop unilaterally (or, in the alternative, not to allow
at all) the exchange of officials of 11 September
2000 with the Greek Ministry of Culture (on the
basis of which the applicant, as an official of the
The applicant claims that the Commission is in breach of its defendant, was exchanged with an official of the
contractual and legislative obligations. The contracts are Ministry of Culture);
separate and non-performance of obligations under one con-
tract cannot justify the suspension of obligations arising from (2) the decision of the defendant not to pay the
the other. No provision of either contract or of the regulations applicant his rightful remuneration for the period
governing those contracts allows the Commission to suspend from 16 September 2000 to 15 November 2000;
14.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 200/59

(3) the implied rejection by the defendant of the admin- Grounds for annulment and main arguments
istrative complaint submitted by the applicant on
5 December 2000 against the contested decisions The applicant alleges that the defendant:
by the defendant referred to at (1) and (2) above; — has infringed Article 62 of the Staff Regulations, which
forms the basis of the entitlement of Community officials
to remuneration;
(4) all other related enforceable measures of the
— has infringed the provisions concerning exchanges of
defendant;
European Parliament and national officials;
— has offended against the principles of good administration
— order the defendant in any event to pay the costs. and of the protection of legitimate expectations.