# C_2022237EN.01006701.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/67

---

Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Engineering — Ingegneria Informatica v Commission and REA

(Case T-222/22)

(2022/C 237/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Engineering — Ingegneria Informatica SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Villata, L. Montevecchi and C. Oncia, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission, European Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | either declare that (a) ‘Letter of Conclusion — ref. Ares (2021) 7900224’ of 21 December 2021 from the European Commission (Directorate-General for Research & Innovation, Directorate H — Common Implementation Centre H.2 — Common Audit Service) — ref. CAIA389007; (b) the Final Audit Report annexed to the Letter of Conclusion with ref. Ares (2021) 7900224; (c) the ‘Confirmation Letter from the Research Executive Agency (REA) REA C. — Future Society C.2 — Secure Society of 23 February 2022’ (‘the confirmation letter’); and (d) the debit note from the Research Executive Agency No 3242202693 of 23 February 2022 (‘the debit note’) are null and void, unlawful or ineffective, or annul them; |
| --- | --- |

—

either declare that (a) ‘Letter of Conclusion — ref. Ares (2021) 7900224’ of 21 December 2021 from the European Commission (Directorate-General for Research & Innovation, Directorate H — Common Implementation Centre H.2 — Common Audit Service) — ref. CAIA389007; (b) the Final Audit Report annexed to the Letter of Conclusion with ref. Ares (2021) 7900224; (c) the ‘Confirmation Letter from the Research Executive Agency (REA) REA C. — Future Society C.2 — Secure Society of 23 February 2022’ (‘the confirmation letter’); and (d) the debit note from the Research Executive Agency No 3242202693 of 23 February 2022 (‘the debit note’) are null and void, unlawful or ineffective, or annul them;

| — | declare (a) that the excluded costs are eligible as they constitute Eligible Costs within the meaning of the ‘Dogana’ Grant Agreement, (b) that, consequently, Engineering is entitled to have the costs considered to be eligible for the purpose of determining the overall amount of the subsidies provided for in the agreement referred to above and (c) that, in any event, the Commission is not entitled to recover those sums; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare (a) that the excluded costs are eligible as they constitute Eligible Costs within the meaning of the ‘Dogana’ Grant Agreement, (b) that, consequently, Engineering is entitled to have the costs considered to be eligible for the purpose of determining the overall amount of the subsidies provided for in the agreement referred to above and (c) that, in any event, the Commission is not entitled to recover those sums;

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misapplication by the European Commission and the Research Executive Agency of the provisions of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant and that agency are parties.






  — | The applicant claims, in that regard, that the confirmation letter and the debit note are based on the outcome of an audit by the European Commission which unlawfully excluded bonuses given to employees on the basis of general objectives from the Eligible Costs within the meaning of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant was a party, for the purposes of benefitting from the subsidies set out therein. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication by the European Commission and the Research Executive Agency of the provisions of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant and that agency are parties.

—

The applicant claims, in that regard, that the confirmation letter and the debit note are based on the outcome of an audit by the European Commission which unlawfully excluded bonuses given to employees on the basis of general objectives from the Eligible Costs within the meaning of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant was a party, for the purposes of benefitting from the subsidies set out therein.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.






  — | The applicant claims, in that regard, that, in the present context of the subsidy schemes in which the applicant participated (in particular, the ‘7th Framework Programme’), the remuneration scheme that was excluded by the contested measures, despite having been examined by the European Commission, had previously been accepted unreservedly. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

—

The applicant claims, in that regard, that, in the present context of the subsidy schemes in which the applicant participated (in particular, the ‘7th Framework Programme’), the remuneration scheme that was excluded by the contested measures, despite having been examined by the European Commission, had previously been accepted unreservedly.

| — | Therefore, the change in the Authority’s assessment in favour of excluding the bonuses, for which they offered no explanation, constitutes an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, which has been upheld a number of times by the Court of Justice and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Therefore, the change in the Authority’s assessment in favour of excluding the bonuses, for which they offered no explanation, constitutes an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, which has been upheld a number of times by the Court of Justice and the General Court.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the ‘Dogana’ Grant Agreement and of the relevant contractual terms, as eligible costs were excluded on that basis of the wording of that agreement for the reasons put forward in the first plea in law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the ‘Dogana’ Grant Agreement and of the relevant contractual terms, as eligible costs were excluded on that basis of the wording of that agreement for the reasons put forward in the first plea in law.

---