Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:652
Date: 2016-11-09
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Space;Research and technological development
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Arbitration clause - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 14 April 2015 — Trivisio Prototyping v Commission (Case T-184/15) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Trivisio Prototyping GmbH (Trier, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch and A. Böhlke, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul Commission Decision C(2015) 633 final of 2 February 2015 concerning recovery of the sum of EUR 385 112.19 together with interest owed by Trivisio Prototyping GmbH; order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the facts The applicant claims, inter alia, that the Commission was aware, or should in any event have been aware, of the involvement of Russian engineers at the time of signing the ULTRA (‘Ultra portable augmented reality for industrial maintenance applications’), IMPROVE (‘Improving Display and Rendering Technology for Virtual Environments’) and CINeSPACE (‘Experiencing urban film and cultural heritage while on-the-move’) grant agreements. It adds that recovery of the sum claimed in those circumstances is an abuse of power. Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant did not infringe the rules of Annex 2 to the grant agreement relating to subcontracting The applicant claims that there existed a relationship of control between it and the employer of the Russian engineers — irrespective of fact that they consist of independent legal persons — with the result that there is no infringement of the provisions of Annex II to the grant agreement. Third plea in law, alleging in the alternative an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations In the alternative, the applicant relies on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations against the recovery of the contested sum. ____________