20150731045617012015/C 270/372342015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150509303121

(Case T-234/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Systema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Georgilas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—uphold this action;

—declare null and void the Commission Decision of 10 March 2015 [SG-Registry (2015) D/3003/11.3.2015] for the recovery from the applicant of the entire amount of seven hundred and sixteen thousand, three hundred and thirty four euros and five cents (EUR 716334,05), with interest; and

—order the defendant to pay the applicants legal costs and general legal expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on three grounds for annulment.

1.The first ground is a claim of an infringement of Article 89 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (1) and of the obligation to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU). The applicant maintains that the contested decision failed to state adequate, specific and detailed reasons for the rejection of the applicant’s request for the reimbursement of the sum owed within the framework of a seven-year arrangement, with regard to the PlayMancer and MOBISERV projects. Correspondingly, with respect to the PowerUp project, the decision tacitly rejects the request for repayment of the sum owed in three years.

2.The second ground is a claim that the Commission erred in the exercise of its discretion, or exceeded the limits of that discretion, and infringed the principle of sound administration. The applicant maintains that the Commission failed to take into account the factors relevant to the issuing of the contested decision, ignored material facts which had been submitted to it, and adopted solutions which lead inevitably to the applicant’s financial ruin.

3.The third ground is a claim of a breach of the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains that the contested decision is not a measure which is necessary in order to achieve the pursued budgetary objective. The decision places disproportionate pressure on the applicant’s vital interests and threatens its very survival and its ability to continue to operate as a business — production unit.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (ΕU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).