Order — ECLI:EU:T:2006:100
Date: 2006-04-03
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Research and technological development
Concepts: General;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Arbitration clause - application inadmissible
Origin: Netherlands

summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. This summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its power of review. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, if submissions are to be admissible, that the essential matters of fact and law on which they are based are indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (Case T-113/96 Dubois etFils v Council and Commission [1998] ECR II‑125, paragraph 29, and Case T-195/00 Travelex Global and Financial Servicesand InterpaymentServices v Commission [2003] ECR II-1677, paragraph 26; see, in addition, order in Case T-110/98 RJB Mining v Commission [2000] ECR II‑2971, paragraph 23). 59 In the present case, as the Commission correctly maintains, the applicant has not, in its application, quantified the amount which it considered ‘justified and in accordance with the contract’ or the number of working hours which it claims to have spent on the contracts. In support of its submissions, the applicant limited itself, in substance, to stating that the Commission had accepted the ‘ABC method’ at the time the contracts were concluded or performed or, alternatively, that it had the right to include the additional hours worked in the calculation of its contractual remuneration. 60 In so doing, the applicant has not, in its application, set out in a sufficiently detailed manner the relevant matters of fact and law to enable the Commission properly to prepare its defence and the Court to assess whether the sums paid to the applicant or the number of working hours spent on the contracts were in accordance with the agreement concluded between the parties under Belgian law which governed the contracts. 61 It must also be recalled that, whilst the body of the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents annexed thereto, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in law which, in accordance with the abovementioned provision, must appear in the application (Case T‑333/99 X v ECB [2001] ECR II-3021, paragraph 115, Case T‑127/02 Concept v OHIM(ECA) [2004] ECR II-1113, and order in Case T‑154/98 Asia Motor Franceand Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-1703, paragraph 49). Therefore, the applicant cannot properly make reference, a fortiori subsequently to the submission of the statement of defence, to documents annexed to the application or to the said statement. 62 In these circumstances, it must be held that the second and third heads of claim contained in the application as well as the submissions presented in support thereof lack the clarity and precision necessary to enable the Commission properly to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its power of review and, therefore, are inadmissible. The fourth head of claim, on the application for an order 63 As set out in its fourth head of claim, the applicant asks the Court to order the Commission to adopt a reasoned decision, in accordance with the rules of sound administration applicable in the present case. 64 In that respect, in support of its action and, in particular, of that claim, the applicant makes reference to the obligation to give reasons, by which it considers the Commission to be bound pursuant to the fundamental principle of good administration as set out in Article 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1), as well as Article 3 of the Code of good behaviour. It follows that that claim does not arise from the contracts and cannot be regarded as having a direct connection with the obligations deriving therefrom (Commission v Zoubek, paragraph 11). Consequently, it does not come within the jurisdiction of the Court, under Article 238 EC. 65 Therefore, the fourth head of claim and, consequently, the application in its entirety, should be declared inadmissible. Costs 66 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, as applied for by the Commission. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible. 2. The applicant shall pay the costs. Luxembourg, 3 April 2006. E. Coulon H. Legal Registrar President * Language of the case: English.