Case T-98/25: Action brought on 6 February 2025 – YAFA Poseidon v CINEA
Date: 2025-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financial instrument, call for proposals, damages, eligibility criteria, energy grid, rights of the defence, trans-European network








C_202502225EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2225


22.4.2025






Action brought on 6 February 2025 – YAFA Poseidon v CINEA


(Case T-98/25)

(C/2025/2225)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ypothalassios Agogos Fysikou Aeriou Elladas – Italias – Poseidon AE (YAFA Poseidon) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: C. Cocuzza, F. Francica, T. Mambrini and C. Pasina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of CINEA of 9 December 2024, relating to Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), Call: CEF-E-2024-PCI-PMI, Project: 101223774 — 15.2-ELCY-W-M-24-EastMed Works (Ref. Ares (2024)8655163 - 04/12/2024);










—


order the defendant to admit the applicant to the evaluation and award procedure stage of the call to which the applicant applied with its submission and evaluate its submission in light of the information provided therein, including all the facts, documents, and evidence that have been clarified, and elaborated on, in its pleas;










—


in case the applicant should not be admitted to the evaluation stage, or in the event that it is admitted and does not obtain financing, order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant for an amount equal to the funding sought with the submission, which was wrongfully denied;










—


in any case, order the defendant to bear its own legal costs as well as the applicant’s legal costs, including attorney fees plus overhead expenses, lawyers’ national mandatory pension fund (c.p.a.) and any tax where applicable plus any court fees, if applicable.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement:






—


the decision issued by CINEA lacks adequate reasons;










—


this amounts to failure to comply with Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union whereby EU authorities are obliged to give the reasons for their decisions;










—


failure to provide the reasons grounding a decision is an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, amounting to a violation of Article 263 TFEU.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application:






—


the considerations by CINEA surrounding its decision are groundless other than scarce, as they are disproven by the contents of the submission;










—


groundless reasons supporting a decision are an infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, amounting to a violation of Article 263 TFEU;














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application:






—


CINEA failed to involve the applicant in any consultation before deciding that its submission was inadmissible;










—


Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union sets forth the right to good administration, including the right to be heard before an individual measure with an adverse effect is taken;










—


a breach of the principle of good administration contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union amounts to an infringement of the Treaties.














4.


Fourth plea in law, regarding damages:






—


the applicant’s illegitimate exclusion from the call procedure by CINEA is based on lack of reasoning and/or groundless reasons, preventing the applicant from obtaining CEF funding;










—


this amounts to non-contractual liability on CINEA’s part, pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU;










—


CINEA breached the do-no-harm principle, as it deprived the applicant of its chance to be awarded the funding by undergoing a full evaluation and award procedure, which causes a significant damage.










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2225/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)