Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2021 –EKETA v Commission
(Case T‑177/17) (1)
(Arbitration clause – Ask-it contract concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme – Eligible costs – Debit note issued by the Commission for the recovery of amounts advanced – Reliability of the time records – Conflict of interests – Subcontracting)
1.      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 – Allocation of the burden of proof
(see para. 36)
2.      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 – No demonstration that the costs have actually been incurred – Ineligible costs
(see para. 47)
3.      EU budget – EU financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Funding only for expenses actually incurred – Proof of the reality of the expenses declared – Staff costs – Production of the time records – Unreliable owing to a conflict of interests between the beneficiary and his contractual partners – Production of documents requiring considerable investment on the part of the Commission in order to determine the time actually worked – Disregard of the obligation for the beneficiary to work together with the Commission in good faith
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2321/2002, Art. 14(2)(a))
(see para. 52)
4.      EU budget – EU financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme – Conditions of ineligibility of costs – Conflict of interests on the part of the beneficiary – Concept – Consequences – Recovery of the sums advanced to the beneficiary
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2321/2002, Art. 18(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 183)
(see para. 65)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis to pay the costs.
1 OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.