Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Fondation IDIAP v Commission

(Case T-286/10) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts relating to the Amida, Bacs and Dirac projects - Eligible costs - Additional cost model - Salary of researchers holding permanent employment contracts - Absence of contractor's own resources)

2012/C 373/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fondation de l’Institut de recherche IDIAP (Martigny, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Chapus-Rapin and G. Couchepin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Sauka, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration from the Court that certain expenditure incurred by the applicant in the performance of Contract No 33812, relating to the Amida project, Contract No 27140, relating to the Bacs project, and Contract No 27787, relating to the Dirac project, concluded by the European Commission within the framework of the sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006), established by Decision 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 232, p. 1), is eligible for reimbursement and that, as a consequence, the applicant is not required to repay EUR 98 042,45 in respect of the contract relating to the Dirac project or EUR 251 505,76 in respect of the contract relating to the Amida project, and, in the alternative, an application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision by which it confirmed the conclusions of an audit to the effect that the costs at issue were ineligible and, second, an order that the Commission arrange for an audit to be undertaken of the projects, to be carried out by a company other than that which carried out the original audit.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.