# C_2016136EN.01004002.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/40

---

Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Eurofast v Commission

(Case T-87/16)

(2016/C 136/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eurofast SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s offsetting decision of 17 December 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s offsetting decision of 17 December 2015;

| — | declare the debt claimed by the Commission against Eurofast under the ASSET contract to be unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the debt claimed by the Commission against Eurofast under the ASSET contract to be unfounded;

| — | declare that all expenditure in respect of the ASSET project, corresponding to EUR 507 574, is eligible and order the Commission to confirm that the funding, as specified in the Grant Agreement, corresponding to EUR 365 639, is lawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that all expenditure in respect of the ASSET project, corresponding to EUR 507 574, is eligible and order the Commission to confirm that the funding, as specified in the Grant Agreement, corresponding to EUR 365 639, is lawful;

| — | order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 69 923,68 under the EKSISTENZ contract, plus late-payment interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 69 923,68 under the EKSISTENZ contract, plus late-payment interest;

| — | order the Commission to pay contractual compensation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay contractual compensation;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, respectively, in support of its application for annulment of the offsetting decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 17 December 2015 and in support of its application for a declaration that the contested contractual debt does not exist.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 78 and 80 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, Article II.21 of Annex II to the FP7 Grant agreement (General conditions), the principle of good faith laid down in Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principles of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 78 and 80 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, Article II.21 of Annex II to the FP7 Grant agreement (General conditions), the principle of good faith laid down in Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principles of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the contractual rules under the General Conditions of the ASSET grant contract and a manifest error of assessment of the rules relating to eligible costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the contractual rules under the General Conditions of the ASSET grant contract and a manifest error of assessment of the rules relating to eligible costs.

---