Case T-724/14: Action brought on 7 October 2014  — ECFA and IEP v Commission and EACEA
Date: 2014-10-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, reimbursement of aid, rights of the defence








C_2015007EN.01003801.xml










12.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/38





Action brought on 7 October 2014 — ECFA and IEP v Commission and EACEA
(Case T-724/14)
(2015/C 007/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: European Children’s Fashion Association (ECFA) (Valencia, Spain) and Instituto de Economía Pública, SL (IEP) (Valencia) (represented by: A. Haegeman, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible and well founded;










—


annul the decision (informal letter) dated 1 August 2014 and debit note No 3241401420 dated 5 August 2014;










—


order the other party to annul its debit note No 3241401420 dated 5 August 2014 on the ground that it is contrary to contractual, legal and regulatory provisions;










—


declare the decision (informal letter) dated 1 August 2014 and debit note No 3241401420 dated 5 August 2014 contrary to the defendant’s contractual obligations and declare them null and void;










—


at the very least, declare that the claim in debit note No 3241401420 is unfounded;










—


in the alternative, reduce the amount of debit note No 3241401420;










—


in so far as is necessary, without prejudice to the parties’ rights, appoint an expert, pursuant to Articles 63 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure;










—


dismiss any claim by the other party for payment of that debit note No 3241401420 and, in so far as is necessary, order it to repay the applicant any amount whose payment the Commission obtained either directly or by set-off, including the principal amount, the interest thereon and any associated costs;










—


in so far as is necessary, and to the extent that the breaches of contract committed by the other party caused damage to the applicant, order the other party to compensate the applicant, in particular and in so far as payments or set-offs from the applicant were obtained, by ordering the other party to repay those amounts;










—


declare that the applicant’s latter head of claim is limited provisionally to 1 EUR from an amount of EUR 82  378,81, subject to increase or decrease during the proceedings, and subject to compensatory interest, at the very least the applicable interest rate agreed in the contract, namely 3,65 %;










—


order the other party to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of contractual obligations, the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence, the general principle of the duty of care and of proportionality, misuse of powers, breach of the obligation to act dutifully and in good faith in the performance of the contracts, breach of Article II.19.3 of the ‘grant agreement’ and breach of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the general rules on the interpretation of contracts, in so far as the decision requiring repayment of a part of the amount paid to the ECFA is based only on the results of the audit, without any other justification.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the audi alteram partem rule and of the rights of the defence, of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the general rules on the interpretation of contracts, in so far as the ECFA was not invited again to submit the documents in order to establish the eligibility of the contested costs even though the applicant was led to believe that it could do so at a later stage of the procedure;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of contractual obligations, the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence, the general principle of the duty of care and of proportionality, misuse of powers, breach of the obligation to act dutifully and in good faith in the performance of the contracts and breach of the terms of the contract governing the subsidy contract entered into and, more specifically, breach of Article II.14 of the ‘grant agreement’, the general principles governing audits, the principle of the performance in good faith of the contracts and the prohibition on the unfair application of contractual terms and of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the general rules on the interpretation of contracts.
The applicants claim that the defendants assume the right to interpret the contract in question as they see fit and without complying with the express provisions laying down the obligation to subsidise the services actually rendered and the eligible costs.