Case T-733/21: Action brought on 16 November 2021 — Greenspider v EISMEA
Date: 2021-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, civil code, contract terms, debt, eligibility criteria, national law, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022073EN.01004801.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/48






Action brought on 16 November 2021 — Greenspider v EISMEA
(Case T-733/21)
(2022/C 73/61)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Greenspider GmbH (Germering, Germany) (represented by: G. Vignolo and V. Palmisano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the present action is admissible and well founded under Article 272 TFEU;










—


find and declare that Greenspider correctly fulfilled its contractual obligations under the GA (Grant Agreement);










—


find and declare that, under Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code, in case of doubt, the interpretation of the contract provided by Greenspider prevails over that provided by EISMEA;










—


find that there were no grounds for EISMEA to issue a debit note to Greenspider and, consequently, that the amount requested therein is not due;










—


find and declare that EISMEA has failed to fulfil its contractual obligations and consequently order EISMEA to pay Greenspider EUR 111 475;










—


order EISMEA to pay the legal costs incurred by Greenspider in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that EASME failed to fulfil its contractual obligations.






—


The applicant submits in that regard that the plea is based on the fact that the reasons given by the Agency justifying the refusal to pay the balance of the eligible costs of the project are unfounded and on the fact that the unit costs are eligible.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the law applicable to the contract.






—


The applicant submits in that regard that the plea is based on infringement of Article 126 of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012; abuse of the principle of the freedom of choice: infringement and incorrect application of Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code and of Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 91/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993; breach of the principle of good faith in the execution of the contract and misuse of rights; breach of the principle of good administration; breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations; and infringement of the principle of proportionality.










(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).