# C_2020371EN.01001701.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/17

---

Action brought on 24 August 2020 — Green Power Technologies v Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking

(Case T-533/20)

(2020/C 371/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Green Power Technologies, S.L. (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain) (represented by: A. León González and A. Martínez Solís, lawyers)

Defendants: Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare and hold that, by its report of 9 July 2018, its decision confirming that report by email of 12 June 2020 and its conduct in the present case, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has infringed the legal acquis of the European Union and, consequently, annul that report; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare and hold that, by its report of 9 July 2018, its decision confirming that report by email of 12 June 2020 and its conduct in the present case, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has infringed the legal acquis of the European Union and, consequently, annul that report;

| — | declare and hold that GPTECH correctly fulfilled its contractual obligations under the projects POLLUX (100205), IoE (269374), MOTORBRAIN (270693) and AGATE (325630) and consequently find that the expenses, which ECSEL sought to recover through debit note 4440200016, are eligible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare and hold that GPTECH correctly fulfilled its contractual obligations under the projects POLLUX (100205), IoE (269374), MOTORBRAIN (270693) and AGATE (325630) and consequently find that the expenses, which ECSEL sought to recover through debit note 4440200016, are eligible;

| — | by reason of the foregoing, find that ECSEL’s claim in the amount of EUR 200 930,35 is inadmissible and unfounded, and, therefore, annul the debit note issued by ECSEL and the pre-information letter of 20 January 2019 that gave rise to that debit note; |
| --- | --- |

—

by reason of the foregoing, find that ECSEL’s claim in the amount of EUR 200 930,35 is inadmissible and unfounded, and, therefore, annul the debit note issued by ECSEL and the pre-information letter of 20 January 2019 that gave rise to that debit note;

| — | in the alternative, in the event that the debit note is not annulled, find that the Commission is liable in respect of unjust enrichment; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event that the debit note is not annulled, find that the Commission is liable in respect of unjust enrichment;

| — | order the Commission and ECSEL to pay the costs or, in the event that the claims in the present action are not upheld, refrain from ordering the applicant to pay the costs, in view of the complexity of this case, and the issues. of fact and law that the case presents. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and ECSEL to pay the costs or, in the event that the claims in the present action are not upheld, refrain from ordering the applicant to pay the costs, in view of the complexity of this case, and the issues. of fact and law that the case presents.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action sets out applications for annulment and applications based on Article 272 TFEU. In respect of the applications based on Article 272, the applicant requests the General Court to find that there is no need to order the reimbursement of the amounts allegedly owed and of the damages set out in the debit note issued by ECSEL.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement, by OLAF and ECSEL, of the fundamental rights of the European Union, in the sense that the general scope of those rights implies that none of those bodies may act in a way that infringes fundamental rights and the legal acquis of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that OLAF disregarded the usual practices of GPTECH and did not rely on technical specialists in R&D to enable it to understand that those practices. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that OLAF did not have regard to GPTECH’s arguments and did not produce the annexes on which it based its decision, which is an infringement of the right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and the right of the defence (Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, based on the eligibility of the expenses which the debit note in question seeks to recover and infringement of Articles II.4, II.7, first paragraph, II.14, first paragraph, (a), (b), (c) and (f); and II.15 of the 7th Research Framework Programme Grant Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging ECSEL’s unjust enrichment, in so far as the projects have been duly completed. |
| --- | --- |

5.

---