12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/33

(Case T-37/08)

(2008/C 92/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—A declaration that the decision of the Commission to set-off the sum of EUR 36 551,58 against the sums due to Mr Walton pursuant to the judgment of the Court in Case T-144/02 was unlawful; or

—a declaration that the decision of the Commission to set off the sum of EUR 36 551,58 against the sums due to Mr Walton pursuant to the judgment of the Court in Case T-144/02 was unlawful in part; or

—a declaration that the sum of EUR 36 551,58 set off by the Commission against the sums due to Mr Walton pursuant to the judgment of the Court in Case T-144/02 should be recalculated so as to remove the Commission's claim for interest; and/or

—an order that (a) the established amount receivable of EUR 13 104,14 plus interest; and/or (b) the established amount receivable of EUR 13 815,16 plus interest be cancelled; and

—an order that the Commission pay the appellant's costs; and

—such further or other measures as the Court may consider just and equitable.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 12 July 2007 in Case T-144/02 Richard J. Eagle and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II-0000 the Commission was ordered by the Court of First Instance to pay the applicant damages of a certain amount.

By payment of 16 November 2007 the Commission paid a reduced amount having set off the sum of EUR 36 551,58. The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission to reduce the sums due to him by this amount.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in reaching the contested decision, as the decision was an unlawful abuse of process since the Commission had withdrawn its claim for set-off during the proceedings before the Court and therefore could not unilaterally pursue the issue subsequently.

The applicant furthermore contends that the contested decision was contrary to a binding legitimate expectation of the applicant, as the Commission had accepted the applicant's figures in correspondence following the judgment of the Court.

Finally, the applicant claims that the debit notes upon which the contested decision relied failed to provide a proper legal basis for the decision and that the decision was based upon a fundamental miscalculation in relation to interest claimed.