# C_2008051EN.01004601.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/46

---

Action brought on 14 December 2007 — Centre d'Etude et de Valorisation des Algues v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-455/07)

(2008/C 51/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre d'Etude et de Valorisation des Algues (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Principally, declare that the procedure is irregular and that there has been an infringement of the right to be heard and, therefore, annul the Commission's debit note No 3240909271, dated 4 October 2007, and order the Commission to reimburse that note to CEVA; |
| --- | --- |

—

Principally, declare that the procedure is irregular and that there has been an infringement of the right to be heard and, therefore, annul the Commission's debit note No 3240909271, dated 4 October 2007, and order the Commission to reimburse that note to CEVA;

| — | In the alternative, declare that the errors noted in the RAIA audit report are not so serious that Article 3.5 of Annex II to the contract may be applied to them, annul the Commission's debit note No 3240909271, dated 4 October 2007, to the extent that it seeks full reimbursement of the amounts paid to CEVA under the BIOPAL contract and order the Commission to reimburse that note to CEVA; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, declare that the errors noted in the RAIA audit report are not so serious that Article 3.5 of Annex II to the contract may be applied to them, annul the Commission's debit note No 3240909271, dated 4 October 2007, to the extent that it seeks full reimbursement of the amounts paid to CEVA under the BIOPAL contract and order the Commission to reimburse that note to CEVA;

| — | In the very much further alternative, appoint an expert of the Court's choice whose mission will be: to take CEVA's method of calculation; apply that method to the BIOPAL contract and to the reality of the costs in the expenditure accounts; express as a percentage the difference between the amount of the errors in the recording of working time as submitted to the Commission and the amount of that working time as recorded under the method of calculation now applicable to CEVA; carry out an assessment of the direct working time necessary to carry out CEVA's missions in the framework of the BIOPAL contract; state whether that real working time, needed to carry out those missions, could be less than the 5 796,67 direct hours calculated by CEVA. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the very much further alternative, appoint an expert of the Court's choice whose mission will be: to take CEVA's method of calculation; apply that method to the BIOPAL contract and to the reality of the costs in the expenditure accounts; express as a percentage the difference between the amount of the errors in the recording of working time as submitted to the Commission and the amount of that working time as recorded under the method of calculation now applicable to CEVA; carry out an assessment of the direct working time necessary to carry out CEVA's missions in the framework of the BIOPAL contract; state whether that real working time, needed to carry out those missions, could be less than the 5 796,67 direct hours calculated by CEVA.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present action, the applicant is seeking the annulment of the debit note whereby the Commission demanded reimbursement of all the payments on account made to the applicant in the framework of BIOPAL contract No QLK5-CT-2002-02431, concerning the key action ‘Sustainable Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Integrated Development of Rural Areas including Mountain Areas’, which is part of the ‘Quality of Life and management of living resources’ (1)

1

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward a plea in law alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the Commission, contrary to the principle of the right to be heard, based the demand for reimbursement on time sheets and conclusions drawn by OLAF of which the applicant had no knowledge.

In the alternative, the applicant contests the Commission's application of Article 26 of Annex II to the contract and its finding that the facts of the case were sufficiently serious to invoke the concept of serious financial irregularity justifying a full reimbursement of the payments on account.

---

(1)  Fifth European Community Framework Programme covering Research, Technological Development and Demonstration activities 1998-2002.

1

---