Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019CN0623

Case C-623/19P: Appeal brought on 21 August 2019 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-64/18 Alfamicro v Commission

OJ C 348, 14.10.2019, p. 13–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.10.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/13


Appeal brought on 21 August 2019 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-64/18 Alfamicro v Commission

(Case C-623/19P)

(2019/C 348/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, advogados, and M. Stock da Cunha, advogada estagiária)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-64/18, (1)

Annul Commission Decision C (2017) 8839 final, of 13 December 2017,

Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the event giving rise to a contractual debt is the contract itself. Consequently, if the Commission, in the declarative action, can make its claims, but does not do so, it cannot, following the judgment, issue enforcement instruments for the amount of the overdraft.

The Commission misused its powers.

In the declarative judgment (T-831/14), (2) the General Court ruled on the Commission’s claim arising out of the grant agreement, and not on the ineligible costs relating to the period covered by the audit, as it erroneously does now.

The operative part of the judgment handed down in the declarative action (T-831/14) does not lay down any limitation, either in relation to the debt, the period or the costs.

A single enforcement instrument corresponds to a single obligation, being the debt under the grant agreement.

It does not make any sense for the General Court to determine definitively a debt and then for the creditor ultimately to claim that not all of the amounts were calculated.

The applicant submits that, from the moment there is a declarative action to determine a contractual debt owed to the European Union, it is forbidden for the Commission to issue enforcement instruments without taking the General Court’s judgment as its reference.

If the declarative action concerns the contractual debt owed by the debtor to the Commission, the jurisdiction of the General Court to determine the debt precludes the Commission’s power to issue enforcement instruments which override the judgment.


(1)  EU:T:2019:453

(2)  See Case C-14/18 P


Top