Case T-65/25: Action brought on 27 January 2025 – LSTech v REA
Date: 2025-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, Greece, United Kingdom, civil code, debt, interest, payment, posted worker, project funding, research staff








C_202501655EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1655


24.3.2025






Action brought on 27 January 2025 – LSTech v REA


(Case T-65/25)

(C/2025/1655)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LSTech Ltd (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi, P. Baudoux and F. Tsalachouris, lawyers)

Defendant: European Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the contentious debit note and letters on the recovery of the alleged debt, in which REA requests the reimbursement of 270 000 euros, constitute a breach of the latter’s contractual obligations and are unfounded as well as the late interests, and that the costs declared by the applicant under the disputed contract are eligible;










—


order the defendant to issue a credit note of 270 000 euros increased by late interests;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





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 that the grant agreement, the version 2.0 of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement (‘the AMGA’) of 30 March 2015 and the amendment of the grant agreement of 12 July 2017 are the only rules applicable to the present case:






—


REA (endorsing the opinion of the auditors) alleges that the secondees should have departed from the legal seat/premises of the applicant in the UK (and not from the applicant’s other premises in Athens) and therefore purports that the costs of the researchers could not be considered as eligible costs under Article 6.2A(b)(ii) of the grant agreement. To support its position, REA refers to the rules concerning the eligibility of costs, embodied in the AMGA of 21 April 2017, which neither the applicant nor the other consortium members had ever signed and were aware of, and for which the original grant agreement had not been amended;










—


in the light of the rules and principles of Belgian law – which is the applicable law in the present case - and considering that REA did not formally inform the applicant about the new rules and their impact on the initial grant agreement, the applicant considers that it is not bound by the new rules embodied in the AMGA of 21 April 2017.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the applicable rules in the grant agreement, the AMGA version 2.0 of 30 March 2015 and the amendment of the grant agreement of 12 July 2017 do not provide that the seconded staff members had to depart from the legal premises of the applicant in the UK:






—


the applicable rules concerning the eligibility of the costs do not specify that the seconded staff members had to depart from the applicant’s legal premises in the UK. Moreover, neither the grant agreement, nor the AMGA version 2.0 of 30 March 2015 defines the notion of ‘premises’;










—


the applicant also considers that its premises in Greece can be qualified as an ‘establishment’ according to the Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). Its premises in Greece must be taken into consideration given it is located in a Member State of the EU;










—


moreover, under Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code, in case of doubt, the agreement is to be interpreted against the party (i.e. REA) who has stipulated it, and in favour of the party (i.e. the applicant) who has contracted the obligation.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant has performed the grant agreement in good faith and the costs are eligible:






—


under Article 1134, third subparagraph, and Article 1135 of the Belgian Civil Code, the parties must perform their contractual obligations in good faith. REA however seems to purport that the applicant did not act in good faith because it did not allegedly inform REA about its premises in Greece. However, this allegation is unfounded as there are evidence showing the contrary;










—


regarding the eligibility of the costs, REA does not explain why it was imperative for the seconded staff to leave from the UK premises rather than from the Greek premises. Nor does it explain how this difference could affect the EU’s financial rights. In this respect, the applicant notes that Article 6.3(a) of the grant agreement, which deals with the eligibility of costs, does not provide for the conditions set out in Article 6.2A(b)(ii) of the grant agreement, which the REA criticizes;










—


the applicant also demonstrates that all conditions were met for the costs to be eligible.










(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1655/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)