Order — ECLI:EU:T:2016:345
Date: 2016-06-09
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Action brought on 18 December 2014 — IREPA v Commission and Court of Auditors (Case T-825/14) Language of the case: Italian Parties Applicant: Istituto di ricerche economiche per la pesca e l’acquacoltura — IREPA Onlus (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: F. Tedeschini, lawyer) Defendants: European Commission and Court of Auditors of the European Union Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: Annul the European Commission’s Debit Note No 3 241 411 395 of 30 September 2014 in which IREPA was asked to pay the sum of EUR 458 347.35 to the European Commission’s bank account by 7 November 2014; Annul the European Commission’s note Ref. Ares (2013) 2 644 562 of 12 July 2013 and the attached report from the European Court of Auditors of 27 February 2013, containing a pre-information letter preceding a recovery order in connection with the Italian Data Collection Programme for 2010; Annul the European Commission’s note Ref. Ares (2014) of 6 August 2014, containing a second pre-information letter preceding a recovery order in connection with the Italian Data Collection Programme for 2010. Pleas in law and main arguments The present action has been brought against the Commission’s objections, based on the Court of Auditors’ deductions, concerning the legitimacy of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with staff and external assistance for the Italian National Fisheries Data Collection Programme (2010), as a result of which the request for repayment of either the EU quota or the national quota was issued. In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. First plea in law, regarding the objection relating to ‘Staff costs’, alleging infringement and incorrect application of: (i) Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data; (ii) Article 16 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts; and (iii) the principle of legitimate expectations. The applicant argues, in that regard, that the request for repayment of the sums relating to ‘Staff costs’ is not valid, because the general and abstract content of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 is to be interpreted in the light of the specific rules for the implementation of the National Programme. It also maintains that the European Commission approved the specific rules of the National Programme in the 2009 budget, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation regarding the validity of those rules for 2010. According to the applicant, the objection regarding the lack of recourse to a tendering procedure for allocating assignments for the collection of data using questionnaires is also invalid, as Article 16(e) of Directive 2004/18/EC excludes ‘employment contracts’ from the scope of the provisions relating to award procedures. Second plea in law, regarding ‘Costs of external assistance’, alleging infringement and incorrect application of: (i) Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008; (ii) Article 16 of Directive 2004/18/EC; (iii) Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy; and (iv) the principle of legitimate expectations. The applicant argues, in that regard, that the complaint regarding the lack of recourse to a selection procedure for allocating the assignment to the company Studio Nouvelle S.r.l. is in breach of Article 16(f) of Directive 2004/18/EC, which excludes the services in question from the scope of the rules on public procurement. In any event, IREPA carried out a pro-competitive procedure by extending invitations to five operators in accordance with the principles underlying public tendering procedures. It also maintains that the objection that there is a lack of data regarding the controls carried out in relation to the service provided by Studio Nouvelle S.r.l. is invalid as it infringes Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, which does not identify any specific rules relating to controls, such rules being instead indicated in the National Plan which was approved by the European Commission, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation regarding the validity of those rules. According to the applicant, the contested inclusion, in the request for repayment, of expenses which the State had not yet actually incurred is invalid, as the sums reported had been imputed to the 2009/2010 National Programme in accordance with Articles 7, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 and the Commission had approved that type of reporting in respect of the documentation relating to the 2008 programme, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation regarding payment.