# C_2020279EN.01004202.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/42

---

Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA

(Case T-358/20)

(2020/C 279/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Net Technologies Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that i) the Research Executive Agency has breached its contractual obligations under the Grant Agreement FP7-SEC-2012-312484, concluded in the context of Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, ii) the claim formulated in the debit notes no 3242005872 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 171 342,97 for unjustified contribution and no 3242005825 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 17 134,30 for liquidated damages, is unfounded, and iii) the corresponding costs for the in-house consultants are eligible; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that i) the Research Executive Agency has breached its contractual obligations under the Grant Agreement FP7-SEC-2012-312484, concluded in the context of Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, ii) the claim formulated in the debit notes no 3242005872 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 171 342,97 for unjustified contribution and no 3242005825 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 17 134,30 for liquidated damages, is unfounded, and iii) the corresponding costs for the in-house consultants are eligible; and,

| — | order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the REA has misinterpreted the provisions regarding eligibility of costs and failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, by issuing the contested debit notes, on the grounds that the costs for in-house consultants met the eligibility criteria, set out in the Grant Agreement and thus they do not give rise to any reimbursement claim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the REA has misinterpreted the provisions regarding eligibility of costs and failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, by issuing the contested debit notes, on the grounds that the costs for in-house consultants met the eligibility criteria, set out in the Grant Agreement and thus they do not give rise to any reimbursement claim.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the REA failed to perform the contract in good faith. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the REA failed to perform the contract in good faith.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the REA has violated the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the REA has violated the principle of proportionality.

---