EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-326/13: Action brought on 18 June 2013 — Commission v Thales développement et coopération

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0326

62013TN0326

June 18, 2013
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

12.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/7

(Case T-326/13)

2013/C 298/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Defendant: Thales développement et coopération SAS (Vélizy-Villacoublay, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

order Thales to repay to the European Commission all the sums received under the NEMECEL and DREAMCAR contracts, namely, in relation to the NEMECEL contract, the principal sum of EUR 700 335,66 plus interest outstanding and, in relation to the DREAMCAR contract, the principal sum of EUR 812 821,43 plus interest outstanding;

order Thales to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Commission is seeking, by the action brought under Article 272 TFEU, an order from the Court that the defendant repay all of the sums received by the defendant’s former subsidiary, SRTI (SRTI System, Industrial Process Department), a company that became first, SODETEG (Société d’Études Techniques et d’Entreprises Générales SA) then THALESEC (Thales Engineering and Consulting), in connection with two research contracts known as ‘NEMECEL’ and ‘DREAMCAR’.

The Commission claims that the sums at issue were wrongly paid, following serious financial irregularities, non-compliance with contractual obligations and breaches of fundamental rules of law. The defendant’s subsidiary inter alia declared excessive costs by over-billing for hours not worked.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia