Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017TN0126

Case T-126/17: Action brought on 27 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission

OJ C 121, 18.4.2017, p. 47–48 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/47

Action brought on 27 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission

(Case T-126/17)

(2017/C 121/68)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Consorzio IB Innovation (Bentivoglio, Italy) (represented by: A. Masutti and P. Manzini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the CONTAIN and ICARGO Grant Agreements when accepting the auditor’s report are incorrect in relation to all of the aspects highlighted in the action;

—

consequently, declare that the applicant’s interpretation and application of the CONTAIN and ICARGO Grant Agreements are correct;

—

order the Commission to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action arises within the context of the issues connected with Case T-84/17, Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission. In that action, the applicant was contesting the decision of the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of 30 November 2016 (ref: Ares 2016-6711369), whereby the Commission found that Consorzio IB Innovation (‘IBI’) was under an obligation to repay EUR 294 925,43 in relation to Contract No 261679-CONTAIN and EUR 155 482,91 in relation to Contract No 288383-ICARGO, and to verify whether there were systemic errors in relation to a series of subsequent contracts.

The applicant questions the Commission’s interpretation of the contracts in question.

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an incorrect and contradictory interpretation of the terms ‘beneficiary’ and ‘third parties’, in breach of the Grant Agreements (GAs) and of the General Conditions (GCs) contained in Annex II to the General Agreements.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that a consortium is not a single entity, but rather a group of undertakings or a ‘collective entity’, and that it is not stated in the GAs or in the GCs contained in Annex II to the General Agreements that an undertaking included in the consortium is a third party in relation to a beneficiary of the GA concerned if the two persons have distinct legal personalities.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the CONTAIN and ICARGO GAs by both the auditor and the Commission as regards the law applicable to those contracts, and application of rules that do not form part of the contracts and are not legally binding.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the auditor’s report, accepted by the Commission, is based on an interpretation of the GAs which is not substantiated either by the wording of those agreements or by the legal rules applicable to them. Rather, that report relies solely on an ‘instruction manual’ prepared by the Commission’s services. That document, drawn up unilaterally, cannot, it submits, take precedence over the rules agreed between the contracting parties.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of Article II.15.2.c of Annex II to the CONTAIN and ICARGO GAs.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the system for reporting the indirect costs relating to certain in-house IBI consultants who teleworked cannot be regarded as correct.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the request for review of contracts not subject to the audit is not based on any contractual provision.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that it is not at all clear which contractual clause of the ICARGO and CONTAIN Gas, including all annexes thereto, confers on the Commission the right to ask IBI for a structured and detailed audit of all the agreements in which IBI has participated within the context of the Seventh Framework Programme. The Commission, acting on the assumption that the errors found by the audit are systemic, is asking IBI to indicate whether the list is complete and, as appropriate, to supplement it with the missing projects and to verify whether such systemic errors are present in the financial reports relating to those projects.
Top