Case T-32/25: Action brought on 21 January 2025 – Plastic Repair System 2011 v Eismea
Date: 2025-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract terms, debt, disclosure of information, eligibility criteria, interest in bringing an action, project funding, rights of the defence








C_202501889EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1889


7.4.2025






Action brought on 21 January 2025 – Plastic Repair System 2011 v Eismea


(Case T-32/25)

(C/2025/1889)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Plastic Repair System 2011, SL (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: J. Azcárate Olano and E. Almarza Nantes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the ‘confirmation letter’ and request notified by Eismea to Plastic Repair System (PRS) on 21 November 2024, together with the enclosures, on the grounds of an irregularity of notification, because it does not indicate the body before which an ‘action under Article 272 TFEU’ had to be brought or the period in which to bring that action and does not contain a calculation of that period or indicate its starting point, thereby denying the applicant its rights of defence; restore the situation existing at the time at which that irregularity of notification occurred, so that Eismea can notify the applicant appropriately, correctly indicating the appropriate remedy and information on all the other elements that must be included on notification of that document;










—


in the alternative, in the event that the preceding claim is rejected and that the Court examines the substance of the case: hold that PRS has complied with its contractual obligations established in the grant agreement and, specifically, with the obligations agreed in the following articles: 13.1 – ‘The beneficiary must ensure that the Agency, the Commission, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can exercise their rights under Article[s] 22 and 23 also towards its subcontractors’; and 41.1 – ‘The beneficiaries have full responsibility for implementing the action and complying with the Agreement. The beneficiaries shall be jointly and severally liable for technical implementation of the action described in Annex 1. If a beneficiary does not implement its own part of the action, the other beneficiaries shall be liable for implementation thereof (with no entitlement to additional EU funding for that item) unless the [Commission] [Agency] expressly relieves them of that obligation’;
consequently, hold that Eismea has failed to comply with the aforementioned grant agreement, by requiring PRS to reimburse part of the grant awarded and already paid, finding that the debt on which the request and debit note for EUR 69 112,43 are based is non-existent;










—


in the further alternative, in the event that PRS is found to have committed the non-compliance indicated in the ‘confirmation letter’ and request notified by Eismea to PRS on 21 November 2024, together with the enclosures, find that the amount of the debt claimed has been calculated incorrectly, and set the amount of that debt at EUR 62 645,88 (instead of the EUR 69 112,43 claimed, as set in the debit note).





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging substantial defects of form on the grounds of irregularities of notification.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure by Eismea to comply with its contractual obligations.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the amount claimed by Eismea has been calculated incorrectly, according to Article 5 of the grant agreement.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1889/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)