# C_2009220EN.01004002.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/40

---

Action brought on 17 July 2009 — CEVA v Commission

(Case T-285/09)

2009/C 220/85

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Centre d’Étude et de Valorisation des Algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

| — | declare that no statement of reasons has been provided for the enforcement orders for four debit notes of the European Commission, dated 11 May 2009: No 3230901933, No 3230901935, No 3230901936 and No 3230901937; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that no statement of reasons has been provided for the enforcement orders for four debit notes of the European Commission, dated 11 May 2009: No 3230901933, No 3230901935, No 3230901936 and No 3230901937;

| — | declare that there is a likelihood of unjust enrichment on the part of the Commission in the event that CEVA refunds the amount of EUR 173 435 together with default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there is a likelihood of unjust enrichment on the part of the Commission in the event that CEVA refunds the amount of EUR 173 435 together with default interest;

| — | in consequence, annul the enforcement orders for the four debit notes dated 11 May 2009, namely, No 3230901933, No 3230901935, No 3230901936 and No 3230901937; |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence, annul the enforcement orders for the four debit notes dated 11 May 2009, namely, No 3230901933, No 3230901935, No 3230901936 and No 3230901937;

| — | lastly, declare that the Commission has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the ‘SEAPURA’ contract, namely Contract No Q5RS-2000-31334; |
| --- | --- |

—

lastly, declare that the Commission has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the ‘SEAPURA’ contract, namely Contract No Q5RS-2000-31334;

| — | declare that the Commission has failed, in particular, to comply with Article 22(5)(3) and Article 3.5 of Annex II to Contract No Q5RS-2000-31334; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission has failed, in particular, to comply with Article 22(5)(3) and Article 3.5 of Annex II to Contract No Q5RS-2000-31334;

| — | in consequence, annul the enforcement orders for the four debit notes dated 11 May 2009, namely, No 3230901933, No 3230901935, No 3230901936 and No 3230901937. |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence, annul the enforcement orders for the four debit notes dated 11 May 2009, namely, No 3230901933, No 3230901935, No 3230901936 and No 3230901937.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, CEVA is seeking annulment of the enforcement orders by which the Commission demanded full reimbursement of the advance payments made to CEVA in the context of the SEAPURA Contract (No Q5RS-2000-31334) concerning a research and technological development project.

In support of its action, CEVA relies on three pleas in law:

| — | failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons, in so far as the Commission based its position on the allegation that CEVA was in breach of its contractual obligations but did not set out the factual and legal grounds for that allegation; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons, in so far as the Commission based its position on the allegation that CEVA was in breach of its contractual obligations but did not set out the factual and legal grounds for that allegation;

| — | breach of the principle that there should be no unjust enrichment since, if the sum claimed by the Commission were to be refunded in full, the Commission would be unjustly enriched in that the work and research carried out by CEVA would be available to the Commission without it having to pay for it; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principle that there should be no unjust enrichment since, if the sum claimed by the Commission were to be refunded in full, the Commission would be unjustly enriched in that the work and research carried out by CEVA would be available to the Commission without it having to pay for it;

| — | failure on the part of the Commission to make proper use of its powers of control during the performance of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

—

failure on the part of the Commission to make proper use of its powers of control during the performance of the contract.

---