Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 —

Meta Group v Commission

(Case T‑744/14)

(Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded within the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Grant agreements concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — Recovery of sums paid — Balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the applicant — Eligible costs — Contractual liability)

1. Judicial proceedings—General Court seised under an arbitration clause—Contract subject to national law—Applicability of national substantive law—Inapplicability of national rules on jurisdiction—National rules on evidence falling under substantive law (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 64-70)

2. Judicial proceedings—General Court seised under an arbitration clause—Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme—Refusal by the Commission to consider as eligible costs certain sums advanced by the beneficiary by way of implementation of the contracts—Request for repayment of advances—Beneficiary challenging the method of calculating the eligible costs—Concept of eligible costs (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 109(2)) (see paras 71-77)

3. 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 expenses actually incurred—Burden of proof (Art. 317 TFEU) (see paras 93-95, 218, 219)

4. Judicial proceedings—General Court seised under an arbitration clause—Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme—Refusal by the Commission to consider as eligible costs certain sums advanced by the beneficiary by way of implementation of the contracts—Request for repayment of advances—Beneficiary challenging the method of calculating the eligible costs—Invocation of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations—Not permissible—Limits—Compliance with the principle of the performance of contracts in good faith (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 187-195)

5. Judicial proceedings—General Court seised under an arbitration clause—Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme—Refusal by the Commission to consider as eligible costs certain sums advanced by the beneficiary by way of implementation of the contracts—Request for repayment of advances—Challenge by the beneficiary of the scope of the said repayment—Invocation of the principle of proportionality—Lawfulness—Obligation to perform the contract in good faith (Art. 5(4) TEU; Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 211, 212)

6. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—Abstract statement—Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 226)

7. 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 expenses actually incurred—Ineligible expenses—Proper technical implementation of projects forming the subject-matter of EU financial assistance—Irrelevant (Art. 317 TFEU) (see paras 246-248)

8. Judicial proceedings—General Court seised under an arbitration clause—Challenge to the validity of a set-off decision—Decision for extra-judicial set-off between debts and claims adopted by the Commission on the basis of Regulation No 1605/2002—Measure falling within EU law—Measure open to an annulment action—Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002) (see paras 254-256)

9. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—Action seeking compensation for loss caused by an EU institution—Lack of precision as to the damage suffered—Inadmissibility (Article 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d)) (see paras 275-277)

Re:

ACTION based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a ruling that the Commission failed to fulfil its financial obligations resulting from several grant agreements which it concluded with the applicant under the Sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013), a declaration that the Commission acted unlawfully in offsetting the amounts claimed by the applicant, an order for payment by the Commission of the sums owed to the applicant under those grant agreements, together with default interest and monetary revaluation, and compensation in respect of the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;