Case C-114/24 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2024 by Global Nanotechnologies AE schediasmou anaptyxis paraskevis kai emporias ylikon nanotechnologias (Glonatech) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2023 in Case T-409/22, Glonatech v REA
Date: 2024-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Framework Programme for Research and Development, civil code, debt, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality, project funding, reimbursement of aid, research and development, right to an effective remedy








C_202402414EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2414


8.4.2024





Appeal brought on 13 February 2024 by Global Nanotechnologies AE schediasmou anaptyxis paraskevis kai emporias ylikon nanotechnologias (Glonatech) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2023 in Case T-409/22, Glonatech v REA
(Case C-114/24 P)
(C/2024/2414)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Global Nanotechnologies AE schediasmou anaptyxis paraskevis kai emporias ylikon nanotechnologias (Glonatech) (represented by: N. Scandamis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part; and










—


declare REA’s Debit Note no 3242113938, dated 22 December 2021 for a claim against the Appellant, amounting, as subsequently revised, to EUR 202 833,48, as deprived of validity and legal effects;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a new ruling in the sense of the orders sought before the General Court;










—


in any case, order the REA to pay the Appellant’s legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred with this appeal and previously with the procedure before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First Ground of Appeal on infringing the right to effective judicial protection by denying application of the good administration principle as proper to the dissymmetry of partners in the Grant Agreement (GA).
Second ground of Appeal on misinterpreting EU Law in regard to agreed flat-rate financing as based on concrete results achieved.
Third ground of Appeal on General Court erred in interpreting the GA in the light of the aforementioned misinterpreted EU law provisions as to the extent and impact of checking EU contributions in the form of flat rate financing, as well as in interpreting Belgian Law as also part of ius commune in relation to the principle of good faith.
Fourth ground of Appeal on General Court erred in assessing evidence produced as from misinterpreting the probandum in relation to flat rate financing and on distorting such evidence by denying its lawful probative force.
Fifth ground of Appeal on General Court erred in dismissing the Appellant’s submission that — under circumstances of doubt cast by the REA, in the absence of irregularities eventually admitted as ‘not systematic’ by the REA itself and in spite of the specific nature of the financing as results/output dependent — the onus probandi should be reversed under Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principle of proportionality should fully apply in regard to conditions laid down for the award as fixed at the outset and as shaped during implementation.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2414/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)