11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/33

(Case T-191/16)

(2016/C 251/39)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—uphold the action;·

—annul the contested act or decision of 16/02/2016 of the European Commission C(2016) 1080 ‘on the recovery of a total amount of EUR 109 415,20 plus interest due by LITO HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN SA’;

—declare that the work time provided by the applicant’s staff for the performance of the project is what is stated as fact in the action;

—take account of the applicant’s submissions if the Court holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 5 November 2009 are to be refunded

—annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to the third instalment which has not been paid;

—set off any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for ten years;

—hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment, and

—order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on six pleas in law:

1.The first plea is based on an infringement of a rule of law by the European Commission and the impossibility of the European Commission adopting an act that is challengeable under Article 263 TFEU with respect to this case.

2.The second plea is that the European Commission failed to take into account the evidence submitted to it.

3.The third plea is that the European Commission failed to take into account the substantive arguments submitted to it during the whole procedure.

4.The fourth plea is based on an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.

5.The fifth plea is that the existence of a term of the contract which provides for only one way of proving the work done is abusive.

6.The sixth plea is that the sum sought by the Commission’s claim is out of time.