Case T-21/25: Action brought on 15 January 2025 – Inescop v Commission
Date: 2025-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, claim, debt, eligibility criteria, equal treatment, fundamental rights, interest, language, limitation of legal proceedings, project funding








C_202501887EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1887


7.4.2025






Action brought on 15 January 2025 – Inescop v Commission


(Case T-21/25)

(C/2025/1887)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Asociación de investigación para la industria del calzado y conexas (INESCOP) (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: C. Morales Ruiz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision calculating the payment by offsetting and the debit note (3242410121) of 14 November 2024 issued by the ‘Budget’ department of the European Commission (‘the contested decision’) and declare that the receivable offset does not exist due to the expiry of the four-year limitation period for all proceedings of the European Commission against Inescop, under Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests; (1)











—


in the alternative, if the principal head of claim is not upheld, annul the contested decision and declare that the receivable offset does not exist due to the expiry of the five-year limitation period for all proceedings of the European Commission against Inescop, under the Financial Regulations of the European Union of 2002 and 2012;










—


in the further alternative, if the above heads of claim are not upheld on the ground that the European Commission has brought administrative proceedings, annul the contested decision and declare that the receivable does not exist due to the expiry of the limitation period for all proceedings of the European Commission against Inescop, irrespective of the application of Regulation No 2988/95 or the Financial Regulations of the European Union to grant agreements;










—


in the further alternative, if the above heads of claim are not upheld on the ground that the European Commission has brought administrative proceedings by issuing the recovery order, annul the contested decision and declare that the receivable does not exist due to breach of Inescop’s fundamental rights, ordering, where appropriate, that fresh proceedings be brought which safeguard the linguistic rights conferred on Inescop by law and, in consequence, that Inescop be provided with a copy in Spanish of each and every one of the communications, decisions, rulings and reports of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), so that it can properly defend itself in the adversarial proceedings, since those communications, decisions, rulings and reports were issued in the exercise of administrative powers unrelated to the contractual relationship under the grant agreements.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the receivable offset is unenforceable under (i) the decisions of the European Union in relation to the 7PM and (ii) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests.
Regulation No 2988/95 lays down the limitation period for any irregularity affecting grants awarded by the European Commission pursuant to grant agreements, irrespective of whether or not those agreements expressly establish a limitation period.
When the European Commission brought proceedings for recovery and damages, the four-year period laid down in Regulation No 2988/95 had expired.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the receivable is unenforceable under (i) the grant agreements and (ii) the law governing the contract: the Financial Regulations of the European Union applicable ratione temporis.
Regulation No 2988/95 lays down the limitation period for any irregularity affecting grants awarded by the European Commission pursuant to grant agreements, by express reference from the 7PM grant agreements.
When the European Commission brought proceedings for recovery and damages, the four-year period laid down in Regulation No 2988/95 had expired.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that if the European Commission had brought administrative proceedings by establishing the receivable subject to offsetting, its entitlement to bring those proceedings against Inescop would also have expired under Regulation No 2988/95 and the 2012 Financial Regulation.
If Regulation No 2988/95 were not applicable, the limitation period for any irregularity would be five years from termination of the 7PM, in accordance with the Financial Regulations applicable ratione temporis to the projects (2002 and 2012 Regulations): (i) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (‘the 2002 Financial Regulation’), applicable ratione temporis to the DES-MOLD project; (ii) 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 (3) (‘the 2012 Financial Regulation’); (iii) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (4) (‘the 2024 Financial Regulation’).
When the European Commission brought proceedings for recovery and damages, the five-year period laid down in the Financial Regulations applicable ratione temporis had expired.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision orders the offsetting of a receivable that is unenforceable because the receivable was established in breach of the grant agreements, in relation to the correct interpretation of Article 4 thereof, and in breach of the principles of good faith and equality between the parties.
The European Commission should have provided Inescop with the documents relating to its proceedings for recovery and damages in Spanish, pursuant to the grant agreement.
The European Commission interprets the contract terms governing the language of the reports and deliverables broadly. Those terms do not include documents and communications relating to proceedings for recovery and damages.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the receivable offset is not enforceable because it was established in breach of the fundamental right to write to the European Commission in one of the Treaty languages and to receive an answer in that same language.
The European Commission should have provided Inescop with the documents relating to its proceedings for recovery and damages in Spanish, pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The European Commission has brought proceedings for recovery and damages in the exercise of administrative powers. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union can be relied on to its fullest extent.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirements for offsetting because the receivable is not certain.
The European Commission was not entitled to offset the receivable. The receivable is not (i) certain, (ii) of a fixed amount and (iii) due, as required by the 2024 Financial Regulation.






(1)  
            OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1.

(4)  
            OJ L 2024/2509, 26.9.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1887/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)