Case T-617/25: Action brought on 11 September 2025 – Ecole Normale Supérieure v Commission and EACEA
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, claim, contract terms, eligibility criteria, project funding, right to an effective remedy








C_202505970EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5970


17.11.2025






Action brought on 11 September 2025 – Ecole Normale Supérieure v Commission and EACEA


(Case T-617/25)

(C/2025/5970)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ecole Normale Supérieure (represented by: A. Cousin, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, European Education and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


find that the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) cannot invoke a claim in the amount of EUR 420 865,04 and, accordingly, declare as unfounded the debit note of 22 October 2024 and the reminders of 10 December 2024 and of 26 May 2025;










—


order EACEA, acting pursuant to the powers delegated to it by the European Commission, to issue a new debit note in the amount of EUR 162 691,30;










—


annul the set-off decision of 14 July 2025 of the European Commission;










—


order the Commission and EACEA to pay the costs.





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 the occurrence of force majeure.






—


The applicant submits that following the restrictive measures adopted by the European Council against Russia in response to the aggression against Ukraine, the participation of the Russian partners in the ‘Integrated Track in Brain and Cognitive Science’ (‘iBrain’) was terminated. By reason of that exclusion, the Russian partners did not send to the applicant the proof of their expenses previously incurred in respect of the iBrain project. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the sanction measures adopted by the Council in response to that aggression amount to force majeure, preventing the applicant from complying with its contractual obligation to transmit the supporting documents in respect of expenditure eligible for a grant from EACEA.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging the absence of a claim by the Commission that is certain, of a fixed amount and due.






—


The applicant claims, in the first place, that by reason of force majeure, the Commission could not order the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 153 160,47 consisting of the unjustified expenditure of the Russian partners.










—


In the second place, the Commission’s set-off decision does not take account of the reimbursement already effected by the applicant in the amount of EUR 105 013,27.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in respect of the set-off decision of 14 July 2025.






—


According to the applicant, the set-off decision does not contain any reasoning to justify that measure, nor does it demonstrate that the facts justifying the set-off are made out.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to adopt an enforceable decision for the purpose of recovering a contractual claim.






—


The applicant submits, in the first place, that the contractual claims do not come within the scope of Article 299 TFEU and, therefore, cannot be subject to a unilateral enforcement decision on the part of the Commission.










—


The applicant submits, in the second place, that granting the Commission the power to adopt a unilateral enforcement measure for the purpose of recovering a contractual claim is contrary to the right to an effective remedy as recognised by the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5970/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)