# C_2022037EN.01004301.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/43

---

Action brought on 16 November 2021 — Společnost pro eHealth databáze v Commission

(Case T-731/21)

(2022/C 37/57)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Společnost pro eHealth database, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Konečný, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2021) 6597 of 2 September 2021, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2021) 6597 of 2 September 2021,

| — | declare that the defendant is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on retroactivity and the incorrect use of stricter conditions in connection with participation in the project.






  — | The applicant claims that the defendant cannot refer to obligations stemming from a non-binding document, of whose existence the contractual parties were not aware and to the application of which they did not at any point agree. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on retroactivity and the incorrect use of stricter conditions in connection with participation in the project.

—

The applicant claims that the defendant cannot refer to obligations stemming from a non-binding document, of whose existence the contractual parties were not aware and to the application of which they did not at any point agree.

| — | The applicant further argues that the defendant referred to the obligations stemming from that non-binding document in breach of the contract concerned on the provision of the grant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further argues that the defendant referred to the obligations stemming from that non-binding document in breach of the contract concerned on the provision of the grant.

| — | The applicant also argues that the defendant infringed the principle of non-retroactivity when it referred to the use of stricter formal requirements stemming from documents not drawn up until after the contract on the provision of the grant was signed. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also argues that the defendant infringed the principle of non-retroactivity when it referred to the use of stricter formal requirements stemming from documents not drawn up until after the contract on the provision of the grant was signed.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of lawfulness of a legal measure on account of a failure to take into account the evidence provided.






  — | The applicant claims that the defendant failed to take into account the evidence provided by the applicant in the final audit report, although it should have done so, and that it thereby infringed the principle of the lawfulness of a legal measure. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of lawfulness of a legal measure on account of a failure to take into account the evidence provided.

—

The applicant claims that the defendant failed to take into account the evidence provided by the applicant in the final audit report, although it should have done so, and that it thereby infringed the principle of the lawfulness of a legal measure.

| — | The applicant further claims that the evidence provided was furnished on the basis of a request by the auditor. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further claims that the evidence provided was furnished on the basis of a request by the auditor.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the lawfulness of a legal measure based on errors in calculation.






  — | The applicant claims that the defendant erred in the determination of the sum on the basis of which the final sum to be returned to the defendant by the applicant was calculated. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the lawfulness of a legal measure based on errors in calculation.

—

The applicant claims that the defendant erred in the determination of the sum on the basis of which the final sum to be returned to the defendant by the applicant was calculated.

| — | The applicant objects that, were it to return the sum calculated by the defendant, it will return a sum that was never provided to it and it will therefore refund the defendant an essentially higher sum. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant objects that, were it to return the sum calculated by the defendant, it will return a sum that was never provided to it and it will therefore refund the defendant an essentially higher sum.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.






  — | The applicant claims that it should be awarded payment of personnel costs in the amount of, at least, the average remuneration of the corresponding employees in the years 2008-2011 in IT companies in the Czech Republic. It considers the failure to award such costs to be unfair and disproportionate conduct on the part of the defendant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

—

The applicant claims that it should be awarded payment of personnel costs in the amount of, at least, the average remuneration of the corresponding employees in the years 2008-2011 in IT companies in the Czech Republic. It considers the failure to award such costs to be unfair and disproportionate conduct on the part of the defendant.

---