Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:746
Date: 2015-10-06
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Research and technological development
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 6 October 2015 1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Commission decision to make an out-of-court set-off between debts and claims on the basis of Regulation No 1605/2002 — Included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 73; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) 2. Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme — Commission decision to make an out-of-court set-off between debts and claims on the basis of Regulation No 1605/2002 — Application for annulment of that decision and a declaration that the said claims non-existent — Partial reclassification of the annulment action as an action concerning a contractual dispute — Conditions (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c); Council Regulation No 1605/2002) 3. EU budget — EU financial assistance — Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for granting the aid — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme — Financing covering only expenses actually incurred — No proof of the reality of the expenses declared — Ineligible expenses (Art. 317 TFEU) 4. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Plea raised for the first time at the reply stage — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c)) 5. Judicial proceedings — Examination of the substance before examination of admissibility — Lawfulness 6. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision taken in a context known to the addressee (Art. 296 TFEU) 7. EU law — Principles — Principle of prohibition of undue enrichment of the Union — Concept 1. An act whereby the Commission effects an out-of-court set-off between debts and claims arising from different legal relationships with the same person is a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU. It is in the context of such an action for annulment that it is for the Court to examine the legality of a decision to off-set in the light of the effects of the failure actually to pay the contested sums to the applicant. (see para. 53) 2. If the express foundation of an action on Article 263 TFEU and the headings of the pleas submitted in support of the action call for the Court to exercise its powers to review the legality of a decision whereby the Commission effects an out-of-court set-off between debts and claims on the basis of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, in submitting a plea alleging a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission, the applicants must be considered to be seeking a declaration from the Court, under Article 272 TFEU, that the claim which the Commission alleges to have is non-existent. Since under Article 272 TFEU the EU Court enjoys full jurisdiction, enabling it, unlike a court reviewing the legality of an act under Article 263 TFEU, to hear and determine any type of action under an arbitration clause, Article 272 TFEU constitutes the appropriate legal basis on which to adjudicate on a claim for a declaration that the contractual claim at issue is non-existent. As regards the possibility of partial reclassification of an action as an action brought under Article 272 TFEU, it should be noted that when an action for annulment or an action for damages is brought before the Court when the dispute is, in point of fact, contractual in nature, the Court will reclassify the action, provided that the conditions for such a reclassification are satisfied. On the other hand, when faced with a dispute which is contractual in nature, the Court considers itself unable to reclassify an action for annulment either where the applicant’s express intention not to base his application on Article 272 TFEU precludes such a reclassification or where the action is not based on any plea alleging infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship in question, whether they be contractual clauses or provisions of the national law designated in the contract. It follows that reclassification of the action is possible, without the rights of defence of the defendant institution being affected, where, first, the express intention of the applicant does not preclude it and, secondly, at least one plea alleging infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship in question is put forward in the application pursuant to the provisions of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. Those two criteria are cumulative. (see paras 53, 54, 57-60) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 84, 88) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 91) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 93) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 96-98) 7. It is clear from the majority of national legal systems that actions based on unjust enrichment are designed, in specific civil law circumstances, to constitute a source of non-contractual obligation on the part of persons in the position of the enriched party involving, in general, refund of sums paid in error. In order for an action for unjust enrichment to be upheld, it is essential that there be no valid legal basis for the enrichment. That condition is not satisfied, in particular, where the enrichment derives from contractual obligations. (see paras 103, 104)