2

The background to the case, set out in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the judgment under appeal, is as follows: ‘1. The applicant[, Lito,] is a maternity hospital specialised in the fields of obstetrics, gynaecology and surgery. It is a member of a consortium which, on 12 May 2004, entered into contract C510743 with the [Commission] on a project, known as Ward In Hand (WIH) [“the WIH project”] under which the Commission agreed to pay its financial contribution in several instalments (“the contract”). The [WIH] project commenced on 1 May 2004 and came to a conclusion on 31 January 2006. Under [that] project ..., the Commission paid to [Lito], by way of European Union financial assistance, the sum of EUR 99 349.50 in total. 2 Article 5(1) of the contract stipulates that it is governed by Belgian law. Furthermore, Article 5(2) thereof provides that the General Court or, in the case of an appeal, the Court of Justice, have sole jurisdiction to adjudicate in any dispute between the European Union and the members of the consortium relating to the validity, application or interpretation of the contract. 3 By letter of 29 April 2009, the Commission informed [Lito] that it would be subject to an investigation, in the form of a financial audit, on account of its participation in the WIH project. It is apparent from that letter that [Lito] would be required, during that investigation, to submit the time sheets of the staff employed on [that] project. At the time of the audit, which was performed from 4 to 6 August 2009, [Lito] did not present the time sheets recording the hours worked by its staff for which it was requesting reimbursement. 4 By letter of 20 October 2009, the Commission sent [Lito] the draft audit report, which stated that the time sheets were missing, and requested it to submit its observations. By emails of 13 and 16 November 2009, [Lito] sent its observations on the outcome of the audit together with time sheets relating to the work on the [WIH] project. By letter of 23 December 2009, to which the final audit report was attached, the Commission upheld the findings set out in the draft audit report. 5 On 25 October 2010, the Commission sent [Lito] an information letter prior to a recovery procedure, requesting that it repay EUR 93 778.90. By letter of 15 November 2010, [Lito] asked the Commission to re-examine and approve the observations which it had previously submitted. 6 By letter of 24 May 2011, after examining the evidence submitted by [Lito], the Commission acknowledged that a staff member, MV, had contributed to the [WIH] project and accepted the calculation of the working hours which she had allotted [to that] project ..., while making it clear that the contractual requirements in that regard had not been met. Furthermore, the Commission accepted accounts for the indirect costs of up to 20% of the recognised direct costs. The amount to be repaid was therefore reduced to EUR 83 001.09. [Lito] submitted observations by letter dated 17 June 2011. 7 Since the Commission considered that, nonetheless, [Lito’s] response did not provide any new evidence capable of proving the hours worked by the other staff members in the framework of the [WIH] project, it sent to [Lito], by letter of 17 August 2011, its final observations. Finally, on 16 September 2011, the Commission sent [the debit note] to [Lito] in which it was requested to pay EUR 83 001.09 by 24 October 2011 … 8 By letter of 3 November 2011, received by [Lito] on 15 November 2011, the Commission reminded [Lito] of its debt, pointing out that that debt bore interest at a rate of 5% per annum, corresponding to EUR 11.37 per day of delay, and, on 18 November 2011, the interest accrued amounted to EUR 284.25.’