This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0312
Case T-312/07: Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission
Case T-312/07: Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission
Case T-312/07: Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission
OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 29–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.11.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 283/29 |
Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission
(Case T-312/07)
(2007/C 283/53)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama, Greece) (represented by: G. Gerapetritis and P. Petropoulos)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul the contested measure so that any obligation owed by the applicant to refund sums paid within the framework of the project LIFE97/ENV/GR/000380 ceases or, in the alternative, amend the contested measure so as to oblige the applicant to pay EUR 93 795,32, the sum calculated to be the ineligible expenditure, as the Commission itself has acknowledged; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and in particular the costs incurred by the applicant on lawyers' fees. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
This application seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 7 December 2005, served by bailiff on the applicant for the purposes of enforcement on 17 May 2007, relating to Debit Note No 3240504536 which was issued to the Municipality of Perama to recover the financial contribution which had been paid by the Commission in the context of the subsidy granted to the Municipality of Perama by Commission Decision C(97)/1997/29 final.
The applicant pleads an error of fact and incorrect interpretation of the Commission decision. More specifically, the applicant infers that its obligation was exclusively to plant the trees and did not in any event involve their subsequent survival, since any subsequent destruction of the trees could not be attributed to the municipality. Therefore, it considers that its legal obligation was exhausted with regard to provision of the works and it was not possible in that connection to seek the payment of sums from it, except where the documentation submitted did not meet the eligibility conditions laid down by the decision.
Also, the applicant submits that the contested measure infringes the general principle requiring reasons to be stated for measures of the Community institutions and the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.