Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 –

VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA

(Case T‑516/19)

(Arbitration clause – ‘Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’ (2014-2020) – Project ‘European Travellers Club: Account-Based Travelling across the European Union – ETC’ – Grant agreement – Decision of INEA declaring ineligible certain costs incurred in the context of subcontracts – Misidentification of the defendant – Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable – Legitimate expectations – Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Annulment of a letter sent by INEA relating to the calculation of a subsidy granted in connection with a grant agreement – No jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility (Arts 256(1), 263, 272 and 274 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 130(1) and (7)) (see paras 33-36, 38, 41, 42)

2. Judicial proceedings – General Court seised under an arbitration clause – Contract subject to national law – Applicability of national substantive law – Grant agreement subject to the rules of EU law, supplemented if necessary by national law (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 50, 51)

3. Judicial proceedings – General Court seised under an arbitration clause – Agreement concluded in connection with a specific research and innovation programme – Refusal by INEA to consider certain costs incurred in connection with subcontracting agreements as eligible costs – Request for reimbursement of the costs incurred – Beneficiary challenging the method of calculating the eligible costs – Abuse of law allegedly committed by INEA – Conditions – None – Reliance on the obligation of diligence – Scope – Obligation for INEA to determine the willingness or the possibility of the recipient to comply with the eligibility conditions of the contract – None (Arts 263 and 272 TFEU) (see paras 52, 54, 56-60)

4. Judicial proceedings – General Court seised under an arbitration clause – Agreement concluded in connection with a specific research and innovation programme – Refusal by INEA to consider certain costs incurred in connection with subcontracting agreements as eligible costs – Request for reimbursement of the costs incurred – Beneficiary challenging the method of calculating the eligible costs – Invocation of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities – Reliance on a failure to act at the time the draft agreement was drafted, at the time that agreement was concluded and in connection with its performance – Not permissible (Arts 263 and 272 TFEU) (see paras 66, 68)

Re:

First, application under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that INEA’s failure to acknowledge, in its letter Ares(2019)3151305 of 13 May 2019, costs in the amount of EUR 407 443.04 in the context of the Horizon 2020 programme, is unlawful, and second and in the alternative, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of that letter in so far as it declared ineligible the costs in that amount.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.