# C_2017293EN.01002501.xml

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/25

---

Appeal brought on 15 July 2017 by Meta Group Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 in Case T-744/14 Meta Group v Commission

(Case C-428/17 P)

(2017/C 293/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Meta Group Srl (represented by: A. Formica, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside and/or vary the judgment of 4 May 2017, Meta Group v Commission, T-744/14, as being vitiated by error and legally unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside and/or vary the judgment of 4 May 2017, Meta Group v Commission, T-744/14, as being vitiated by error and legally unfounded;

Meta Group

Commission

| — | find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its financial obligations arising from grant contracts concluded in the framework of the CIP programme and the Fifth and Sixth European Union Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, totalling EUR 566 377,63, in respect of contributions due but unpaid, and also declare illegal the offsetting made in respect of the applicant’s claims; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its financial obligations arising from grant contracts concluded in the framework of the CIP programme and the Fifth and Sixth European Union Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, totalling EUR 566 377,63, in respect of contributions due but unpaid, and also declare illegal the offsetting made in respect of the applicant’s claims;

| — | consequently, order the Commission to pay the appellant that sum of EUR 566 377,63, together with default interest and reflecting monetary revaluation; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the Commission to pay the appellant that sum of EUR 566 377,63, together with default interest and reflecting monetary revaluation;

| — | furthermore, order the Commission to pay compensation for damage caused to the applicant, in the amount of EUR 815 000 in total, or more should the Court deem it appropriate at the conclusion of the present proceedings, and also in respect of the serious loss resulting from the unlawfulness of the abovementioned offsetting. |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, order the Commission to pay compensation for damage caused to the applicant, in the amount of EUR 815 000 in total, or more should the Court deem it appropriate at the conclusion of the present proceedings, and also in respect of the serious loss resulting from the unlawfulness of the abovementioned offsetting.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| I. | Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134 and 1135 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the binding nature and execution in good faith of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the interpretation of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the principles of EU law in respect of the binding nature of contracts, good faith in the performance and interpretation of contracts, legal certainty.

  By rejecting the third plea in law, the contested judgment infringed the rules of the Belgian Civil Code and EU law as regards the binding nature of the contracts, in that it failed to recognise the mutually binding nature of the clause set out on page 47 of the Amendment to the Ecolink+ contract and disregarded the fact that the reference contained therein to a methodology annexed to the contract was not referring to the methodology proposed by Meta and sent to the Commission on 21.12.2009. |
| --- | --- |

I.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134 and 1135 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the binding nature and execution in good faith of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the interpretation of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the principles of EU law in respect of the binding nature of contracts, good faith in the performance and interpretation of contracts, legal certainty.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134 and 1135 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the binding nature and execution in good faith of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the interpretation of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the principles of EU law in respect of the binding nature of contracts, good faith in the performance and interpretation of contracts, legal certainty.

By rejecting the third plea in law, the contested judgment infringed the rules of the Belgian Civil Code and EU law as regards the binding nature of the contracts, in that it failed to recognise the mutually binding nature of the clause set out on page 47 of the Amendment to the Ecolink+ contract and disregarded the fact that the reference contained therein to a methodology annexed to the contract was not referring to the methodology proposed by Meta and sent to the Commission on 21.12.2009.

| II. | Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article II.19 of the Guide to Financial Issues relating to Indirect Actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes (‘the FP6 Guide’). Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article 179 TFEU in relation to Community programmes. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the principle of non-contradiction.

  By rejecting the fourth and fifth pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the principle of non-contradiction, the criteria of the FP6 Guide and the rules of the Belgian Civil Code as regards good faith in the performance of contracts, in that, despite describing the provisions set out in the FP6 Guide as non-binding, it applied them rigidly and unfailingly in the instant case before the court, specifically with regard to the relative costs of in-house consultants. |
| --- | --- |

II.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article II.19 of the Guide to Financial Issues relating to Indirect Actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes (‘the FP6 Guide’). Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article 179 TFEU in relation to Community programmes. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the principle of non-contradiction.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article II.19 of the Guide to Financial Issues relating to Indirect Actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes (‘the FP6 Guide’). Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article 179 TFEU in relation to Community programmes. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the principle of non-contradiction.

By rejecting the fourth and fifth pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the principle of non-contradiction, the criteria of the FP6 Guide and the rules of the Belgian Civil Code as regards good faith in the performance of contracts, in that, despite describing the provisions set out in the FP6 Guide as non-binding, it applied them rigidly and unfailingly in the instant case before the court, specifically with regard to the relative costs of in-house consultants.

| III. | Infringement of the principles of EU procedural law relating to the right of defence and the right to have a case heard in its entirety. Infringement of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. Absolute lack of reasoning on a fundamental issue of the dispute.

  By rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the EU law principles of the right to have a case heard in its entirety and the right of defence, as well as Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, in that it failed to consider the legal arguments set out by the appellant in its observations in the document entitled ‘Annex E.4’, lodged by the Commission only at the hearing, uncritically accepting what was argued by the other party and failing to give sufficient reasons for its own decision. |
| --- | --- |

III.

Infringement of the principles of EU procedural law relating to the right of defence and the right to have a case heard in its entirety. Infringement of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. Absolute lack of reasoning on a fundamental issue of the dispute.

Infringement of the principles of EU procedural law relating to the right of defence and the right to have a case heard in its entirety. Infringement of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. Absolute lack of reasoning on a fundamental issue of the dispute.

By rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the EU law principles of the right to have a case heard in its entirety and the right of defence, as well as Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, in that it failed to consider the legal arguments set out by the appellant in its observations in the document entitled ‘Annex E.4’, lodged by the Commission only at the hearing, uncritically accepting what was argued by the other party and failing to give sufficient reasons for its own decision.

| IV. | Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the FP6 Guide and the provisions of the Seventh Framework Programme. Manifest error in the understanding of a decisive element of the instant case.

  Furthermore, by rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the FP6 Guide and distorted the facts material to the proceedings, calculating erroneously and in a misleading manner the working time under the Bridge contract (in respect of which accounts were drawn up), that is to say, on the basis of the assumption shown here that a contracted service provider would have worked for eight consecutive hours every day of the month purely carrying out activities relating to the aforementioned contract. |
| --- | --- |

IV.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the FP6 Guide and the provisions of the Seventh Framework Programme. Manifest error in the understanding of a decisive element of the instant case.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the FP6 Guide and the provisions of the Seventh Framework Programme. Manifest error in the understanding of a decisive element of the instant case.

Furthermore, by rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the FP6 Guide and distorted the facts material to the proceedings, calculating erroneously and in a misleading manner the working time under the Bridge contract (in respect of which accounts were drawn up), that is to say, on the basis of the assumption shown here that a contracted service provider would have worked for eight consecutive hours every day of the month purely carrying out activities relating to the aforementioned contract.

| V. | Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the European law principle of protection of legitimate expectations in that it applies to a private party engaged in contractual relations with a public body.

  By rejecting the sixth plea in law, the judgment infringed the provisions of the Belgian Civil Code concerning the binding nature of contracts and the principle of good faith in the performance of contracts, in that it failed to recognise that the Commission’s conduct, in particular the drawing up of the Amendment, caused the appellant to have legitimate expectations that the methodology proposed by it would be accepted. |
| --- | --- |

V.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the European law principle of protection of legitimate expectations in that it applies to a private party engaged in contractual relations with a public body.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the European law principle of protection of legitimate expectations in that it applies to a private party engaged in contractual relations with a public body.

By rejecting the sixth plea in law, the judgment infringed the provisions of the Belgian Civil Code concerning the binding nature of contracts and the principle of good faith in the performance of contracts, in that it failed to recognise that the Commission’s conduct, in particular the drawing up of the Amendment, caused the appellant to have legitimate expectations that the methodology proposed by it would be accepted.

---