Case T-593/24: Action brought on 19 November 2024 – Brucella Green Vac v Commission
Date: 2024-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, debt, eligibility criteria, executive agency, principle of proportionality, project funding, public institution, sanction (EU), vaccine








C_202500733EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/733


10.2.2025






Action brought on 19 November 2024 – Brucella Green Vac v Commission


(Case T-593/24)

(C/2025/733)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Brucella Green Vac, SL (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. Pajares Echeverría, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision C(2024) 5089 of the European Commission of 12 July 2024, that is to say, annul the debt claimed by the European Innovation Council (EIC), and find that the factors that led to the early termination of the project were the infringements and obstructions on the part of a Spanish public body, the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Spanish National Research Council; ‘the CSIC’), and the EIC’s tolerance of those interferences, and in no way the conduct of Brucella Green Vac, SL, which complied with all the contractual requirements imposed by the European Union;










—


in the alternative, should the claim for the annulment of the decision not be granted, suspend payment of the debt until the pending disputes with the CSIC in Spain are resolved, which would allow the company to defend its rights without the undue pressure of debt, the claim for the recovery of which is due to wrongful conduct on the part of the CSIC that is already the subject of domestic proceedings in Spain.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, relying on the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)






—


Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees the right to good administration, which obliges the institutions of the European Union to take decisions impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time.










—


In the present case, the unexpected change to the funding conditions amounts to a lack of good administration, since the European Innovation Council Fund (EICF) altered in an arbitrary manner a crucial aspect of the agreement (the 30 % equity contribution), doing so, in addition, more than a year after the launch of the project, when a good part of the funds had already been spent, which placed the company in a situation of manifest vulnerability.










—


Furthermore, the EIC’s decision to terminate the project without carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the exceptional circumstances surrounding the conflict with the CSIC constitutes a failure to observe that principle.














2.


Second plea in law, relying on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations






—


In the present case, that principle was clearly not observed, in the first place, on account of malicious and abusive actions on the part of the Spanish public body CSIC, actions which were fully proved and which the EIC ignored and tolerated, thereby failing to provide a suitable environment for the completion of the project.










—


In the second place, that principle was not observed on account of the EIC’s unilateral change to the criterion applied, which drastically modified the funding conditions initially agreed with the beneficiary. That change exposed the company to an unexpected vulnerability, in the absence of which it would have avoided any claim for repayment, that claim therefore being a direct consequence of an EIC decision.














3.


Third plea in law, relying on the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU)






—


Any measure, including the imposition of financial penalties or a claim for the recovery of debt, must be proportionate and appropriate to the seriousness of the infringement.










—


Despite the evidence provided to the EIC, which demonstrated the unlawful conduct of the Spanish public body CSIC seeking to sabotage the project, and even though the company was able to sublicense the vaccine to a leading laboratory which removed all economic and technical barriers, the EIC rejected the contingency plan, making very weak arguments.










—


That negligent management on the part of the European Union resulted in the early termination of the project and in the claim for recovery of debt from the applicant in the amount of EUR 396 232,75, together with default interest. Accordingly, the present action seeks to ensure that the guiding principles of the European Union are observed and to prevent the abusive conduct of public institutions from destroying private initiatives with high transformative potential.










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/733/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)