# C_2015311EN.01005401.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/54 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 13 July 2015 — Università del Salento v Commission

(Case T-393/15)

(2015/C 311/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Università del Salento (Lecce, Italy) (represented by F. Vetrò, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested measures, and consequently direct the payment of all amounts owing to the Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Innovazione dell’Università del Salento (Department of Innovative Engineering of the University of Salento) in relation to the contract entitled ‘Support for training of career researchers’‘Grant Agreement No 6102350, Explaining the nature of technological innovation in Chinese enterprises’, with all legal consequences, including as regards the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas and main arguments

The present action is brought against the measure of the European Commission, DG Budget, Budget Implementation (General Budget and EDFs) Recovery of loans, of 4 May 2015, Ref. N. D/CA — B.2 — 005,817, and the debit note attached thereto. That measure offset the amount receivable by the Department of Innovative Engineering of the University of Salento from the Commission, for the performance of a ‘Support for training career of researchers”, Grant Agreement n. 6102350, Explaining the nature of technological innovation in Chinese enterprises’, against a debt which, according to the Commission, the Dipartimento di Scienze giuridiche (Department of Legal Science) of the University of Salento owed to the Commission in relation to the contract entitled ‘Agreement JUST/2010/JPEN/AG/1540 — Judicial Training and Research on EU crimes against environment and maritime pollution.’

In support of its application, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 3 and 24 of the Italian Constitution, abuse of power, misuse of power due to an erroneous assumption, failure to conduct a proper investigation, error of fact and infringement and misapplication of Article 81 of the Financial Regulation of the European Union.
—
The applicant argues in that regard that the offsetting is implemented in contradiction of the European rules relating to the certainty of the amount, whether that amount is liquid and whether it is payable. In the present case, the alleged debt is contested by the debtor, as is clear from the correspondence attached. The Commission’s decision is unilateral and, as such, infringes the principle of equality. | — | The applicant argues in that regard that the offsetting is implemented in contradiction of the European rules relating to the certainty of the amount, whether that amount is liquid and whether it is payable. In the present case, the alleged debt is contested by the debtor, as is clear from the correspondence attached. The Commission’s decision is unilateral and, as such, infringes the principle of equality. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant argues in that regard that the offsetting is implemented in contradiction of the European rules relating to the certainty of the amount, whether that amount is liquid and whether it is payable. In the present case, the alleged debt is contested by the debtor, as is clear from the correspondence attached. The Commission’s decision is unilateral and, as such, infringes the principle of equality. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of the principle of effectiveness of Community law, infringement and misapplication of the principle of sound financial management and misuse of power due to failure to conduct a proper investigation.
—
The applicant argues in that regard that the amounts allocated for the research project of the Department of Innovative Engineering had to be used only to carry out the research for which they had been allocated and could not be the offset against debt relating to activities other than those established by the aforementioned research project, lest it infringe the principle of effectiveness. The contested measures infringe the principle of sound financial management since the Commission, by implementing the offset, did not use the money granted in accordance with its intended purpose. | — | The applicant argues in that regard that the amounts allocated for the research project of the Department of Innovative Engineering had to be used only to carry out the research for which they had been allocated and could not be the offset against debt relating to activities other than those established by the aforementioned research project, lest it infringe the principle of effectiveness. The contested measures infringe the principle of sound financial management since the Commission, by implementing the offset, did not use the money granted in accordance with its intended purpose. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant argues in that regard that the amounts allocated for the research project of the Department of Innovative Engineering had to be used only to carry out the research for which they had been allocated and could not be the offset against debt relating to activities other than those established by the aforementioned research project, lest it infringe the principle of effectiveness. The contested measures infringe the principle of sound financial management since the Commission, by implementing the offset, did not use the money granted in accordance with its intended purpose. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 296 TFEU.
—
The applicant argues in that regard that the contested act did comply with the obligation to state reasons in the provision referred to above, since it fails to state the source, the reasons, or the legal grounds for the decision to offset the sums owed to the Department of Innovative Engineering against those owed to the Department of Legal Science. | — | The applicant argues in that regard that the contested act did comply with the obligation to state reasons in the provision referred to above, since it fails to state the source, the reasons, or the legal grounds for the decision to offset the sums owed to the Department of Innovative Engineering against those owed to the Department of Legal Science. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant argues in that regard that the contested act did comply with the obligation to state reasons in the provision referred to above, since it fails to state the source, the reasons, or the legal grounds for the decision to offset the sums owed to the Department of Innovative Engineering against those owed to the Department of Legal Science. | | |

---