do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-748/20: Action brought on 19 December 2020 –Commission v CEVA and Others
Date: 2020-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, audit, claim, fraud, industrial restructuring, interest








C_2021138EN.01003401.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/34






Action brought on 19 December 2020 –Commission v CEVA and Others
(Case T-748/20)
(2021/C 138/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents, and by E. Bouttier, lawyer)

Defendants: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France), SELARL TCA, acting as court-appointed representative in CEVA’s sauvegarde procedure (Saint-Brieuc, France) and SELARL AJIRE, acting as administrator for the implementation of CEVA’s ‘safeguard’ plan (Rennes, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order CEVA, represented by its President, to pay the applicant an amount of EUR 234 491,02, which corresponds to the principal sum of EUR 168 220,16 and to the sum EUR 66 270,86 in interest for late payment;










—


order CEVA to pay the costs of the present action.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, based on the validity of the application pursuant to the arbitration clause of grant contract No Q5RS-2000-31334, which provides in Article 5 that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (now ‘General Court of the European Union’) and, in case of appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (now ‘Court of Justice of the European Union’) have sole jurisdiction to hear any dispute between the Community (now ‘European Union’), on the one hand, and the other parties to the contract, on the other hand, as regards the validity, application or any interpretation of that contract.










2.


Second plea in law, based on the obligation to bring proceedings against the administrator for the implementation of the ‘safeguard’ plan and the court-appointed representative in CEVA’s sauvegarde procedure by reason of the opening of that procedure. The applicant considers that, since the present action follows the adoption of the ‘safeguard’ plan, the creditor should bring proceedings not only against the administrator for the implementation of the plan but also against the court-appointed representative, as bodies involved in the procedure of verification and admission of claims.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging fraud by CEVA and serious financial irregularities which were allegedly found in the context of an audit. The applicant claims, inter alia, that the French courts found that the fraudulent declarations relating to the number of hours dedicated to the different projects for which CEVA received EU grants amounted to a breach of contractual obligations by CEVA. Thus an obligation to reimburse the advances agreed by the applicant arises as a result of the fraudulent nature of CEVA’s alleged acts.