Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — European Children’s Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública v EACEA

(Case T‑724/14)

‛Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the action programme ‘Lifelong Learning (2007-2013)’ — ‘Brand & Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector’ project — Action for annulment — Act not subject to appeal — Act forming part of a purely contractual agreement from which it is indissociable — Inadmissibility — Ineligible expenditure — Reimbursement of the sums paid — Audit report’

1. Judicial proceedings — Legal basis of an action — Choice for the applicant and not the EU judicature (see para. 30)

2. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Annulment of a preinformation letter and a debit note issued by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 33-37)

3. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Application to administrative procedures brought by an institution or body of the Union — Scope — Application to a procedure for recovering debts of contractual origin in respect of a recipient of European funds — Exclusion — Limits — Compliance with the audi alteram partem principle in the context of the audit procedure (Art. 272 TFEU) (see para. 48)

4. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Abstract statement — Inadmissibility — Reference to the whole of the annexes — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 62, 104)

5. Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Grounds — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (Arts 272 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see para. 69)

6. EU law — Principles — Proportionality — Scope — Compliance by the EU institutions in connection with measures forming part of a contractual context (Art. 5(4) TEU) (see para. 73)

7. Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Grounds — Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 75-77)

8. Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 78, 79)

9. 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 — None — Ineligible expenses — Proper technical implementation of projects forming the subject-matter of EU financial assistance — Irrelevant (Art. 317 TFEU) (see paras 94, 95)

10. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Plea raised for the first time at the reply stage and not constituting the amplification of a plea set out previously — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), and 84(1)) (see paras 110, 112)

11. Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Contract granting EU financial support for an education and training project — Application for designation of an expert for the purposes of demonstrating the costs incurred — Rejection — Burden of proof borne by the applicant by virtue of the financing contract (Art. 272 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 68 to 70) (see para. 137)

Re:

Primarily, application, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration that the first applicant is not required to reimburse the sum paid to it by EACEA under the agreement for the execution of the ‘Brand & Merchandising Manager for SMEs in the Children’s Product Sector’ project, or, in the alternative, application for annulment, firstly, of EACEA’s pre-information letter of 1 August 2014 informing the first applicant that it had to reimburse the sum of EUR 82378.81 following the audit of the that project and, secondly, of debit note No 3241401420, issued by EACEA on 5 August 2014, seeking the reimbursement of that sum.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;