2

The background to the dispute was set out as follows in paragraphs 1 to 22 of the order under appeal: ‘1 The applicant, Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion is a business and projects management consultancy company. It collaborates with international and European partners, including the Commission …, in the field of strategy consultancy, data-processing and project management. 2 The present case concerns the Commission’s rights and obligations under the contracts concluded with the applicant for three research projects. Those contracts were based on Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 concerning 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 to 2006) (OJ 2002 L 232, p. 1). 3 It concerns, more specifically, the contracts concluded between the European Community, represented by the Commission, and: — the applicant, acting as coordinator and member of a consortium, signed on 17 December 2003, for the project “Ontology enabled E-Gov Service Configuration” (Ontogov, No 507237); — the Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe, acting as coordinator of a consortium of which the applicant was a member, signed on 21 December 2005 for the project “Fostering self-adaptive e-government service improvement using semantic technologies” (FIT, No 27090); — the applicant, acting as coordinator and member of a consortium, signed on 18 December 2006 for the project “Risk Assessment for Customs in Western Balkans” (RACWeb, No 45101) (taken together, “the contracts at issue”). 4 Article II.24(1)(a) of the contracts at issue provides that the financial contribution of the European Union is based on the eligible costs declared by the contracting parties. 5 In accordance with Article II.8 of the contracts at issue, the Commission must, before reimbursing the costs declared by the consortium and/or the contracting parties at the end of each reporting period, evaluate and approve the reports and the deliverables. Under Article II.8(4), the approval of a report by the Commission does not imply exemption from any audit or review, which may be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article II.29. 6 Article II.29 of the contracts at issue provides as follows: “1. The Commission may, at any time during the contract and until five years after the end of the project, arrange for audits to be carried out, either by outside scientific or technological reviewers or auditors, or by the Commission departments themselves including OLAF. Such audits may cover scientific, financial, technological and other aspects (such as accounting and management principles) relating to the proper execution of the project and the contract. Any such audit shall be carried out on a confidential basis. Any amounts due to the Commission as a result of the findings of any such audit may be the subject of a recovery as mentioned in Article II.31 … 2. The contractors shall make available directly to the Commission all the detailed data that may be requested by the Commission with a view to verifying that the contract is being properly managed and performed. 3. The contractors shall keep the original or, in exceptional cases, duly substantiated, authenticated copies, of all documents relating to the contract for up to five years from the end of the project. These shall be put at the Commission’s disposal where requested during the execution of any audit under the contract.” 7 In accordance with Article II.31(1), of the contracts at issue, “if any amount is unduly paid to the contractor or if recovery is justified under the terms of the contract, the contractor undertakes to repay the sum in question on whatever terms and by whatever date it may specify”. 8 Finally, according to Article 12 of the contracts at issue, those contracts are governed by Belgian law. Article 13 provides that “the [General Court or the Court of Justice of the European Union] as is appropriate in the specific case shall have sole jurisdiction to hear any disputes between the Community and the Contractors as regards the validity, the application or any interpretation of this contract”. 9 In the period from 17 to 21 November, and on 4 December 2008, external auditors carried out, on behalf of the external audit unit of the Directorate-General (DG) “Information Society and Media” of the Commission (‘DG Information’), a financial audit of the applicant, focused on the costs declared for certain periods in respect of the Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects. 10 By email of 8 April 2009, the auditors transmitted to the applicant a provisional audit report which, in particular, called into question the personnel costs of three of [its] senior managers (“the disputed costs”). 11 On 29 May 2009, the applicant submitted its observations on the provisional audit report. 12 On 10 July 2009, the applicant submitted a declaration of revised costs, accepting certain recommendations by the auditors. 13 By letter of 11 November 2009, the external audit unit of DG Information set out the reasons why it maintained the conclusions contained in the provisional audit report and transmitted to the applicant the final audit report. 14 By letter of 23 December 2009 the applicant challenged the compliance of the audit and invited the Commission to a meeting in order to provide detailed information as to its objections. 15 On 4 March 2010, a meeting took place between the applicant and the external audit unit of DG Information. It was agreed that the applicant would provide the Commission with additional information with respect to the involvement of its senior managers. 16 By letter of 19 April 2010, the applicant transmitted to the Commission the additional documentation that it had undertaken to provide. 17 By letter of 10 May 2010, the external audit unit of DG Information informed the application of its intention to carry out a follow-up audit at its seat and transmitted a list of supporting evidence that was required to be produced during the audit. That audit took place between 20 and 22 July 2010. 18 On 3 September and 9 December 2010, the applicant submitted the additional information requested during the follow-up audit. 19 By letter of 22 December 2010, the external audit unit of DG Information informed the applicant that it had decided to partially revise the conclusions of its report by accepting certain expenses, but to maintain the conclusions as regards the disputed costs. 20 By letter of 11 February 2011, the applicant submitted its observations on the revised conclusions of the audit report. 21 By letter of 10 April 2012, the external audit unit of DG Information replied that it maintained almost all of its conclusions as regards the disputed costs. 22 By letter of 21 May 2012, the applicant reaffirmed its position as regards the eligibility of the disputed costs.’