62018CJ0346_INF
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 — Rose Vision v Commission
(Case C‑346/18 P) (
1
)
(Appeal — Projects financed by the European Union in the area of research — Seventh Framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreements relating to the FIRST, FutureNEM, sISI, 4NEM and SFERA projects — Audits finding irregularities in the implementation of certain projects — European Commission decisions suspending payment of the amounts payable under other projects — Action for compensation and annulment)
1.
Appeal — Grounds — Procedural irregularity — Need for the interests of the appellant to be adversely affected
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see para. 32)
2.
Judicial proceedings — Subject matter of the dispute — Alteration once proceedings have been started — Prohibition
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76 and 84(1))
(see paras 43, 114)
3.
Appeal — Grounds — Ground submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170(1))
(see para. 70)
4.
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 — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion
(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))
(see paras 82, 83)
5.
Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see para. 88)
6.
Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court defined only by Article 272 TFEU and the arbitration clause — Jurisdiction over an action seeking a declaration — Scope — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita
(Art. 272 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76 and 84(1))
(see paras 99, 100, 106, 107, 116)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 March 2018, Rose Vision v Commission (T‑45/13 RENV and T‑587/15, not published, EU:T:2018:124) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court ruled, in paragraph 160 thereof, that, on the basis of Article 340, first paragraph, TFEU, the appellant had not suffered damage arising from a contract as a result of the breach of paragraph II.22(1) of the general terms and conditions that form an integral part of the agreements concluded between Rose Vision SL and the European Commission, under the Seventh Framework programme, adopted by Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013);
2.
Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;
3.
Finds that the European Commission breached the grant agreement relating to the FutureNEM project in so far as concerns the confidentiality of Audit 11-INFS-025;
4.
Orders Rose Vision SL to bear its own costs and pay half of those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
(
1
)	OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.