CELEX: 62015TN0151
Language: en
Date: 2015-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-151/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission

8.6.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 190/20
            
         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission
   (Case T-151/15)
   (2015/C 190/23)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the action admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare that the applicant is only liable of the amount of 5  638,22 EUR;
            
         
               —
            
            
               condemn the European Commission to pay all the legal costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   Under its claim, the applicant requests the General Court to declare that the European Commission has breached its contractual obligations under the Contract of 20 December 2005 on the project for European Action for Global Life science — Food Forum with reference LSSP-CT-2005-512135 (‘the Contract’), and claims to be declared liable of the amount of 5  638,22 EUR against the 86  676,42 EUR requested by the European Commission.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning several eligible costs which constitutes an error in the appreciation of proof contrary to Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant puts forward that the debit note issued by the European Commission is based in the conclusions of the final audit report but that the appraisal carried out by the European Commission’s auditors for issuing this report was incorrect with respect to several costs, namely personnel costs and costs related to certain events. Therefore, the European Commission issued a debit note based on incorrect assumptions and failed to prove facts to support its allegations, resulting in an infringement of article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code and, consequently, in a contractual infraction.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging alleging an infringement of Articles II.20 and II.6 of the General Conditions of the Contract as well as of Article 1347 of the Belgian Civil Code as the European Commission unjustly concluded that costs related to the work of certain members of the personnel were ineligible because those members did not have a valid employment contract with the applicant.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principle of execution of contract in good faith.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant puts forward, amongst others, that it did not get the chance to defend itself by explaining to the European Commission any misunderstanding or minor mistake incurred by it in the performance of the Contract, that the enormous financial gap between the first draft audit report and the final audit report demonstrates a clear lack of correctness and prudency and that the several miscalculations and inaccuracies in figures throughout the whole final audit report have caused the applicant a struggle to properly understand the accusations made by the European Commission.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of motivation from the European Commission at refusing to reimburse some costs.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant puts forward that the European Commission accepted the fact that the applicant was assisted by another legal entity and therefore created the legal expectation that the costs derived from this relationship would be perfectly eligible.
                        
                     
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging a lack of clarity in the rules applicable to the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (‘FP6’).
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant puts forward that according to Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code, should uncertainty arise, an agreement is to be interpreted against he who stipulated it and in favor of he who contracted the obligation. The contractual rules applicable to FP6 result from ‘standard’ clauses established by the European Commission, to which the applicant had no other possibility but to adhere, making it the party who contracted the obligation. This situation, together with the fact that they pose evident problems of interpretation, as illustrated by the high numbers of appeals before the General Court questioning them, justifies that the uncertainty must benefit the applicant. The interpretation rule of Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code makes it possible for the judge to construe the badly drafted or ambiguous provisions against their author, being the Commission.