11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/27

(Case T-721/18)

(2019/C 54/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Zoe Apostolopoulou and Anastasia Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki (Athens, Greece) (represented by: D. Gouskos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—uphold the action and order the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to each of the applicants the total sum of five hundred thousand euros, that sum being broken down in the pleadings;

—order the defendants to refrain in future from any attack on the character of the applicants;

—order the first named defendant to restore the honour and reputation of the applicants by means of a declaration before the Efeteio Athinon (Athens Court of Appeal), before which is pending on appeal the defendant’s action dated 11/09/2017 with the general registry number 572461/2017 and special registry number 1898/2017 (objections of the applicants), within which the first defendant resorted to falsehoods that are denied and insulting statements with respect to the applicants;

—order the defendants to pay the general costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against the European Commission and the European Union. Given that the latter is always represented before the General Court by the institution to which the contested act or conduct is attributed, the Commission is consequently called as the only defendant to this action.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1.The first plea in law is based on an infringement of the human dignity and the character of the applicants, by reason of the defamatory arguments of the Commission before the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon (First instance court of Athens) and infringement of the principle of sound administration, with the aim of proceeding to enforcement against the applicants.

2.The second plea in law is based on the infringement of the principles of legality, good faith and protection of legitimate expectations, by reason of the Commission’s argument that the applicants as partners are legally responsible and that the undertaking had no legal personality, although it has repeatedly entered into contracts knowing that under Greek law and according the statutes of the undertaking they had no personal liability for the obligations of the undertaking.

3.The third plea in law is based on the infringement of the right to an effective remedy before an independent court or tribunal, in that the applicants were not parties to the proceedings in which the enforcement orders were issued.

4.The fourth plea in law is based on the deceitful and abusive acceleration of the enforcement procedure against the applicants.