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 62020TN0358

    Case T-358/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA

    OJ C 279, 24.8.2020, p. 42–43 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    24.8.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 279/42

    Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA

    (Case T-358/20)

    (2020/C 279/56)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Net Technologies Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

    Defendant: Research Executive Agency

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    declare that i) the Research Executive Agency has breached its contractual obligations under the Grant Agreement FP7-SEC-2012-312484, concluded in the context of Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, ii) the claim formulated in the debit notes no 3242005872 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 171 342,97 for unjustified contribution and no 3242005825 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 17 134,30 for liquidated damages, is unfounded, and iii) the corresponding costs for the in-house consultants are eligible; and,

    —

    order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the REA has misinterpreted the provisions regarding eligibility of costs and failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, by issuing the contested debit notes, on the grounds that the costs for in-house consultants met the eligibility criteria, set out in the Grant Agreement and thus they do not give rise to any reimbursement claim.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the REA failed to perform the contract in good faith.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the REA has violated the principle of proportionality.
    Top