62019CJ0273_INF
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.