Case C-100/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2014 by the European Medical Association Asbl (EMA) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2013 in Case T-116/11 European Medical Association v European Commission
Date: 2014-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, audit, contract terms, equal treatment, indemnification, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, proof, redemption, work contract








C_2014129EN.01001402.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/14






Appeal brought on 28 February 2014 by the European Medical Association Asbl (EMA) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2013 in Case T-116/11 European Medical Association v European Commission
(Case C-100/14 P)
(2014/C 129/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: European Medical Association Asbl (EMA) (represented by: A. Franchi, L. Picciano and G. Gangemi, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union delivered on 11 December 2013 in Case T-116/11 and refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

EMA has brought an appeal before the Court of Justice against the judgment of 11 December 2013 in Case T-116/11 in so far as the General Court dismissed EMA’s action, brought under Articles 268 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 340 TFEU, for reimbursement of personnel costs for Contracts Nos 507760 (Dicoems) and 507126 (Cocoon).
EMA relies on the following grounds of appeal:






 



First ground of appeal: Misinterpretation of the terms of the contracts and the legal rules, and manifest error in assessing the evidence
EMA submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a misinterpretation of the terms of the contracts and of the applicable law and by a manifest error in assessing the evidence in so far as the General Court found that the Commission had correctly deduced that the costs invoiced but not yet paid had neither been borne by EMA nor entered in its accounts by the date on which the audit certificate was drawn up under the Belgian accounting rules.










 



Second ground of appeal: Manifest error in assessing the evidence and failure to state reasons
EMA submits that various sections of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by serious procedural errors in that they contain no statement of reasons, inadequate statements of reasons, or contradictory statements of reasons. In addition, the General Court made several omissions or manifest errors in its assessment of the evidence produced during the proceedings. It can be inferred from the judgment under appeal that the General Court often failed to carry out an assessment specifically focusing on the evidence produced by EMA and failed de facto to rule on the heads of claim set out by that party in its application and reply. On a number of occasions, the General Court unconditionally relied on the results of the final audit report carried out on the Dicoems and Cocoon contracts on the Commission’s behalf, despite the fact that, in the main action, EMA specifically challenged those results.










 



Third ground of appeal: Misapplication of the principle of good faith and sincere cooperation in performing a contract
EMA submits that the General Court made an error in its assessment of Belgian law with regard to the application of the principle of good faith and sincere cooperation in performing a contract. In relation to the Dicoems and Cocoon projects, the Commission failed to fulfil its own monitoring obligations as laid down in Article 11.3.4 of the general conditions of each of the contracts in question, which makes specific reference to the Commission’s obligation to ensure that the project is correctly carried out from a scientific, technological and financial point of view. The General Court wrongly concluded that the Commission had not failed in its duty of supervision and that it had not infringed any specific provision of either contract and that it had thus been right in terminating immediately the two contracts relating to the Dicoems and Cocoon projects. The General Court also dismissed EMA’s claim for damages under those contracts.










 



Fourth ground of appeal: Breach of Community law principles
EMA submits that the General Court committed several infringements of Community law — in particular, it alleges misapplication of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination — and that it infringed EMA’s right of defence.