CELEX: 62009TN0224
Language: en
Date: 2009-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-224/09: Action brought on 5 June 2009 — CEVA v Commission

29.8.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 205/40
            
         Action brought on 5 June 2009 — CEVA v Commission
   (Case T-224/09)
   2009/C 205/74
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               principally, declare that no contractual link exists between the European Commission and CEVA (European Research Center for Algae) and, consequently,
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul enforcement order No 3230900440 of the European Commission of 6 April 2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, find that no statement of reasons has been provided for enforcement order No 3230900440 of the European Commission of 6 April 2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare that there is a risk of unjust enrichment of the Commission in the event that CEVA reimburses the sum of EUR 179 896 together with default interest;
            
         
               —
            
            
               consequently, annul enforcement order No 3230900440 of the European Commission of 6 April 2009.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the enforcement order by which the Commission demanded reimbursement of all the payments made on account to the applicant in the framework of contract PROTOP No EVK3-CT-2002-30004 relating to a research and technological development project.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging:
   
               —
            
            
               that the enforcement order is inadmissible since no contractual link exists between the applicant and the Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               failure to provide a sufficient statement of reasons, since the Commission relied on an alleged infringement of the contractual obligations by the applicant without however setting out the legal and factual reasons in support of that claim;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of the principle of unjust enrichment, since the reimbursement in full of the sum demanded by the Commission means that it would be unjustly enriched insofar as it has obtained work and studies by the applicant without however paying for them to be carried out.