Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:26
Date: 2019-01-22
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Research and technological development
Procedure: Arbitration clause - unfounded;Arbitration clause - successful
Origin: Greece

Action brought on 8 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission (Case T-166/17) Language of the case: Greek Parties Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the General Court should: declare that the request made by the European Commission to ΕΚΕΤΑ to reimburse the amount of EUR 197 799.52 of the payment received by it for the SENSATION project, that request being made in the debit note 3241615291/29.11.2016, is unfounded with respect to the sum of EUR 191 039.55; declare that the sum of EUR 191 039.55 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the European Commission, and order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. Pleas in law and main arguments By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615291/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the SENSATION project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the SENSATION project, a sum of EUR 197 799.52. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises. In that context, the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that, out of the above amount stated in the debit note, the sum of EUR 191 039.55 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the Commission. ΕΚΕΤΑ maintains that the above amount of EUR 191 039.55 constitutes eligible staff costs, subcontracting costs and indirect costs, which the Commission wrongly rejected as being ineligible. The eligibility of the applicant’s costs is demonstrated by the evidence that it submitted to the European Commission at the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and that it submits to the General Court. ____________