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 62022TN0273

Case T-273/22: Action brought on 13 May 2022 — Engineering — Ingegneria Informatica v Commission

OJ C 276, 18.7.2022, pp. 11–12 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.7.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/11

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — Engineering — Ingegneria Informatica v Commission

(Case T-273/22)

(2022/C 276/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Engineering — Ingegneria Informatica SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Villata, C. Oncia and L. Montevecchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that the cited measures of the Commission DH (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation — Directorate H — Common Implementation Centre — H.2. Common Audit Service) and of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs — in particular the LOC (Letter of Conclusion Ref. Ares (2021)7900224 — 21/12/2021 of the European Commission ref. CAIA389007), the FAR (Final Audit Report annexed to the LOC), the letter requesting repayment (Confirmation Letter of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs of 15 March 2022) and the debit note (note of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs No 3242203436 of 15 March 2022), are null and void, unlawful, annulled or in any event ineffective;

—

declare that the excluded costs are eligible costs for the purposes of the Dante Grant Agreement and, accordingly, that Engineering is entitled to have those costs taken into account for the purpose of determining the total amount of the subsidy provided for in that agreement and, in any event, that the Commission is not entitled to recover those sums;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication by the European Commission — European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs of the provisions of the Dante Grant Agreement.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the letter requesting repayment and the debit note are based on the outcome of an audit by the European Commission that unlawfully excluded from the eligible costs under the Grant Agreement, to which the applicant is a party in order to benefit from the subsidy provided for therein, bonuses allocated to employees on the basis of general objectives.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that in the context of previous subsidy schemes in which the applicant participated (in particular the 7th Framework Programme), the remuneration scheme excluded by the contested measures, despite having been examined by the Commission, had been considered eligible without reserve. The change in the decision of the Authority regarding the eligibility of the bonuses, for which it provides no explanation, thus constitutes an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, which has been upheld by the Court of Justice and the General Court on several occasions.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the ‘Dante’ Grant Agreement and of the contractual provision in question, eligible costs having been excluded on the basis of the wording of that agreement, for the reasons set out in relation to the first plea in law.
Top