Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2020:852
Date: 2020-10-22
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Research and technological development
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Arbitration clause
Origin: Greece

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 – EKETA v Commission (Case C‑273/19 P)(1) (Appeal – Arbitration clause – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 – Article 52 – Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 – Decision No 1513/2002/EC – Grant agreement – Sensation project – Sixth Framework Programme – Eligible costs – Conflict of interests – Burden of proof – Time sheets – Audit report – Probative value – Principle of sound financial management – Principle of proportionality) 1. Appeal – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the interpretation of a contractual term – Not included (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169) (see paras 48, 110, 118) 2. Appeal – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the evidence – Material inaccuracy of the finding not clear from the case file – Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, art. 169) (see para. 49) 3. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Failure to observe the rules of evidence – Admissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 50, 51) 4. Judicial proceedings – Proof – Probative value – Discretion of the General Court (see para. 69) 5. EU budget – EU financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Financing covering only expenses actually incurred – Demonstration that the costs have actually been incurred – Allocation of the burden of proof (Art. 317 TFEU) (see paras 74, 77) 6. Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Admissibility – Scope of the obligation to state reasons – Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 88) 7. Action for annulment – Grounds – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 89) 8. EU budget – EU financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Justification of costs incurred – Proceedings by the Commission for recovery of advances paid – Recovery of funding for costs found to be ineligible by an audit report – Breach of the principle of proportionality – None (Art. 317 TFEU) (see paras 127, 128) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.