# C_2019432EN.01005901.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/59

---

Action brought on 8 October 2019 – VeriGraft v EASME

(Case T-688/19)

(2019/C 432/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VeriGraft AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Hansson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find and declare that EASME’s termination of the Grant Agreement (Grant Agreement No 778620 P-TEV) is invalid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

find and declare that EASME’s termination of the Grant Agreement (Grant Agreement No 778620 P-TEV) is invalid; and

| — | order EASME to pay costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASME to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the invoked ground for termination is not applicable and EASME’s termination is thus invalid:






  — | EASME has terminated the Grant Agreement citing no other basis for its decision than a provision, according to which the Grant Agreement may be terminated if ‘the beneficiary, or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of professional misconduct, proven by any means’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the invoked ground for termination is not applicable and EASME’s termination is thus invalid:

—

EASME has terminated the Grant Agreement citing no other basis for its decision than a provision, according to which the Grant Agreement may be terminated if ‘the beneficiary, or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of professional misconduct, proven by any means’.

| — | As neither the beneficiary, i.e. VERIGRAFT, nor any natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of any professional misconduct, this ground is not applicable and the termination is thus invalid. |
| --- | --- |

—

As neither the beneficiary, i.e. VERIGRAFT, nor any natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of any professional misconduct, this ground is not applicable and the termination is thus invalid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the termination of the Grant Agreement breaches the principle of proportionality:






  — | A termination of the Grant Agreement also breaches the principle of proportionality as it was not a suitable measure to achieve the legitimate objective pursued; it was not necessary to achieve the objective pursued; and as the termination imposed a burden on VERIGRAFT that is clearly excessive to the objective sought to be achieved. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the termination of the Grant Agreement breaches the principle of proportionality:

—

A termination of the Grant Agreement also breaches the principle of proportionality as it was not a suitable measure to achieve the legitimate objective pursued; it was not necessary to achieve the objective pursued; and as the termination imposed a burden on VERIGRAFT that is clearly excessive to the objective sought to be achieved.

---