Case T-4/20: Action brought on 3 January 2020 — Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii v Commission
Date: 2020-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, claim, contract terms, debt, eligibility criteria, interest, rights of the defence








C_2020087EN.01002201.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/22






Action brought on 3 January 2020 — Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii v Commission
(Case T-4/20)
(2020/C 87/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: Ł. Stępkowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the defendant’s contractual claim set out in a letter of 13 November 2019 (ref. Ares (2019)6993009), dated 12 November 2019, and in six debit notes issued by the defendant accompanied by a cover letter for the aggregate amount of EUR 180 893,90 consisting in the amount of EUR 164 449 as to the principal amount, and in the amount of EUR 16 444,90 liquidated damages, is non-existent; and, as a consequence:










—


declare that the personnel costs subject to the action are eligible costs payable by the defendant; and










—


order the defendant to pay the amount of EUR 180 893,90 to the applicant, plus statutory default interest under Belgian law of 8 % per annum from 24 December 2019 inclusive, until the date of payment of the principal sum; and










—


as a subsidiary form of order, to the extent that the defendant’s letter of 13 November 2019 (ref. Ares (2019)6993009) constitutes a challengeable act, annul the Commission’s decision contained in that letter.










—


in any case, order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.






1.


First primary plea in law, alleging breach of contract: breach of Article II.14(1)(a)(b), read together with Articles II.6(6), II.22(6) and II.24(1) of Annexes II to the grant agreements nos. 248577-C2POWER, 257626-ACROPOLIS and 215669-EUWB.










2.


Second primary plea in law, alleging breach of applicable law, i.e. the law of Belgium: breach of Articles 1134, 1135 and 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code.










3.


Third primary plea in law, alleging breach of applicable law, i.e. the law of Poland: breach of Articles 113, 18§ 2 and 140 of the Polish Labour Code.










4.


Fourth primary plea in law, alleging that statutory interest is due from the defendant on the basis of a general principle of Union law on default interest and under Belgian law.










5.


Fifth primary plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, in that the defendant offered precise and unconditional assurances which were breached.










6.


Sixth primary plea in law, relating to costs, arguing that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs as an unsuccessful party.










7.


First subsidiary plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence, in that the defendant did not produce evidence and did not hear the applicant.










8.


Second subsidiary plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, in that the defendant committed errors of fact and did not produce a consistent body of evidence.










9.


Third subsidiary plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons, in that the defendant did not offer a statement of reasons and refused to explain its position.










10.


Fourth subsidiary plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, in that the defendant offered precise and unconditional assurances which were breached.










11.


Fifth subsidiary plea in law, relating to costs, arguing that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs as an unsuccessful party.