# C_2016098EN.01005801.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/58

---

Action brought on 2 February 2016 — Sigma Orionis v REA

(Case T-47/16)

(2016/C 098/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

Declare that REA failed to fulfil its contractual obligations under grant contract H2020 by suspending all payments due to the applicant 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 contract. |
| --- | --- |

—

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 contract.

Consequently, that the defendant be ordered:

| — | to pay the amounts due under grant contract H2020, that is EUR ,, 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 amounts due under grant contract H2020, that is EUR ,, 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Research Executive Agency (REA) 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 REA 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 Research Executive Agency (REA) 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 REA 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 REA 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 REA 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.

---