Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2020:421
Date: 2020-09-23
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Research and technological development
Procedure: Arbitration clause - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission (Case T-314/19) Language of the case: Spanish Parties Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Ríus Coma, lawyers). Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the General Court should: Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible; Uphold the pleas in law put raised in the application and, accordingly: Declare that the termination of the BreadGuard project is unfounded and, consequently, bring the inter partes procedure in question to a close. In the alternative, order the Commission to pay the amounts corresponding to the works actually carried out by TECNALIA and to cease requesting recovery of the amounts of aid granted in respect of the BreadGuard project that were received by TECNALIA for the implementation of the project. In the further alternative, annul the decision to terminate and order the reopening of the inter partes procedure until the shortcomings observed and reported by TECNALIA in the terms set out in the application are remedied. In any event, declare that no finding of grave professional misconduct on the part of TECNALIA is to be made. Order the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments The present action has been brought against the closure of the inter partes procedure in respect of the project FP7-KBBE-2013-613647 BREADGUARD grant agreement, which was the subject of the request for redress dismissed by notice of 22 March 2019. In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law. First plea, alleging that TECNALIA did not infringe the grant agreement In that regard, the applicant submits that the grant agreement was wrongfully applied, in that it imputes the infringement of Articles II.38(1)(b), II.38(1)(c), II.38(1)(f) and II.38(1)(l) thereof, given that TECNALIA evidently did not infringe the grant agreement’s content in respect of each and every one of the irregularities and infringements imputed in the decision to terminate. Second plea, alleging that Article II.38 of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied. In that regard, the applicant claims that Article II.38(1)(l) of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied in view of the finding of grave professional misconduct on the part of TECNALIA. Third plea, alleging that Article II.38(1)(l) of Annex II to the grant agreement was wrongfully applied In that regard, the applicant submits that Article II.38 of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied in order to terminate the BreadGuard project by holding the Consortium accountable as a whole. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article II.23(5) of Annex II to the grant agreement ̶ In that regard, the applicant alleges infringement of the content of Annex II to the BreadGuard grant agreement, on account of the European Commission’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports. Fifth plea, alleging that the acknowledgement of the findings by one of the beneficiaries is irrelevant ̶ In that regard, the applicant submits that the University of Kassel’s findings regarding the inter partes procedure in its capacity as one of the beneficiaries of the BreadGuard and FoodWatch projects are irrelevant. ____________