# C_2016098EN.01005901.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/59

---

Action brought on 2 February 2016 — Sigma Orionis v Commission

(Case T-48/16)

(2016/C 098/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sigma Orionis SA (Valbonne, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that the European Commission failed to fulfil its contractual obligations under grant contracts FP7 and H2020 by suspending all payments due to the applicant on the basis of an OLAF investigation report that was drawn up unlawfully; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the European Commission failed to fulfil its contractual obligations under grant contracts FP7 and H2020 by suspending all payments due to the applicant on the basis of an OLAF investigation report that was drawn up unlawfully;

| — | Declare that the European Commission failed to fulfil its contractual obligations under grant contracts FP7 and H2020 by terminating the contested grant contracts on the basis of an OLAF investigation report that was drawn up unlawfully; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the European Commission failed to fulfil its contractual obligations under grant contracts FP7 and H2020 by terminating the contested grant contracts on the basis of an OLAF investigation report that was drawn up unlawfully;

| — | In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert whose task will be to determine the amounts indisputably payable to the applicant under the contested grant contracts. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert whose task will be to determine the amounts indisputably payable to the applicant under the contested grant contracts.

Consequently, that the defendant be ordered:

| — | to pay the unlawfully suspended amounts due under grant contract FP7, that is, EUR 607 404,49 together with interest on late payment in accordance with Article II.5.5, calculated from the due date of the amounts payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 points, |
| --- | --- |

—

to pay the unlawfully suspended amounts due under grant contract FP7, that is, EUR 607 404,49 together with interest on late payment in accordance with Article II.5.5, calculated from the due date of the amounts payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 points,

| — | to pay the unlawfully suspended amounts due under the H2020 grant contracts, that is, EUR 226 688,68 together with interest on late payment in accordance Article 21.11.1, calculated from the due date of the amounts payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 points, |
| --- | --- |

—

to pay the unlawfully suspended amounts due under the H2020 grant contracts, that is, EUR 226 688,68 together with interest on late payment in accordance Article 21.11.1, calculated from the due date of the amounts payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 points,

| — | to compensate the applicant for the additional harm that it has suffered, assessed at this stage in the amount of EUR 1 500 000 subject to increase or reduction in the course of the proceedings, |
| --- | --- |

—

to compensate the applicant for the additional harm that it has suffered, assessed at this stage in the amount of EUR 1 500 000 subject to increase or reduction in the course of the proceedings,

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

—

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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission cannot rely on an investigation report drawn up on the basis of evidence obtained unlawfully to justify its decision to suspend, in their entirety, the payments due to the applicant. The applicant claims, in that regard, that in so far as the Commission relied on unlawfully obtained evidence, both the suspension of payments and the termination of the grant contracts are unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission cannot rely on an investigation report drawn up on the basis of evidence obtained unlawfully to justify its decision to suspend, in their entirety, the payments due to the applicant. The applicant claims, in that regard, that in so far as the Commission relied on unlawfully obtained evidence, both the suspension of payments and the termination of the grant contracts are unlawful.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in that the various technical audit reports invariably concluded that the resources were used by the applicant in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and sound financial management. It follows from this that the Commission could not claim to have validly found that the applicant had committed irregularities in connection with other grants such as to justify either the termination or suspension of all payments in the contested grant contracts. Moreover, participation in the grant agreements constitutes the only source of funding for the applicant and the absence of new European projects would inevitably lead to bankruptcy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in that the various technical audit reports invariably concluded that the resources were used by the applicant in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and sound financial management. It follows from this that the Commission could not claim to have validly found that the applicant had committed irregularities in connection with other grants such as to justify either the termination or suspension of all payments in the contested grant contracts. Moreover, participation in the grant agreements constitutes the only source of funding for the applicant and the absence of new European projects would inevitably lead to bankruptcy.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion and which is such as to cause the European Union to incur non-contractual liability. The applicant has suffered damage in connection to its reputation and its order book, which greatly reduces or even eliminates any prospect of participating, in the future, in new European projects. Moreover, participation in the grant agreements constitutes the only source of funding for the applicant and the absence of new European projects would inevitably lead to bankruptcy. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion and which is such as to cause the European Union to incur non-contractual liability. The applicant has suffered damage in connection to its reputation and its order book, which greatly reduces or even eliminates any prospect of participating, in the future, in new European projects. Moreover, participation in the grant agreements constitutes the only source of funding for the applicant and the absence of new European projects would inevitably lead to bankruptcy.

---