Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2018 –

Epsilon International v Commission

(Case T‑477/16)

(Arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Interest in bringing proceedings — Eligible costs — Suspension of payment — Application for annulment — Decision to register the applicant in the central database of the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Pleas — Alteration once proceedings have been started — Condition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 84(2)) (see paras 45, 46, 48)

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 — Action brought by the beneficiary against the Commission’s letter announcing its intention to issue a debit note — No definitive declaration of the debt — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Application inadmissible (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 64, 65, 67, 70)

3. 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 — Burden of proof (Arts 272 TFEU and 317 TFEU) (see paras 78, 100, 103)

4. National law — Reference to national law — Belgian and Luxembourgish laws — Law of obligations — Right to compensation for harm of contractual origin — Conditions (see paras 135-137)

5. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Burden of proof (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 142-145)

6. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action brought against a decision to register the applicant in the central database of the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) — Listing cancelled in the course of the proceedings — Irrelevant — Basis of a possible action for compensation — Interest in bringing proceedings retained (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 108(4)) (see paras 146-149)

7. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Processing of data by the administration for purely internal purposes — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 152, 153)

8. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Registration in the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) database — Action by an entity covered by the registration — No external effects of registration on the applicant’s legal situation — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Arts 66, 106(1) and 108(4)) (see paras 158-163)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration (i) that the amounts paid by the Commission under the Briseide, i-SCOPE and Smart-Islands grant agreements constitute eligible costs; (ii) that the Commission’s decisions to suspend payments in respect of the i-Locate, eENV-Plus, GeoSmartCity and c-Space projects are unfounded; (iii) that the Commission’s unlawful conduct caused damage to the applicant; and, second, (i) under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 17 June 2016 (Ares (2016) 2835215) registering EPSILON in the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) database and (ii) under Article 268 TFEU for the award of compensation in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that act.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;