Case C‑78/14 P

European Commission

v

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias

‛Appeal — Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Contracts relating to EU financial support granted to the Perform and Oasis projects — Irregularities identified during audits of other projects — Decision of the Commission to suspend reimbursement of the amounts advanced by the recipient — Eligible costs — Distortions of the documents on the file’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 29 October 2015

1. Appeal — Grounds — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Material inaccuracy of findings of fact not resulting from documents in the case — Inadmissibility

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2))

2. Appeal — Grounds — Challenge to the interpretation of a contractual provision which is unrelated to a provision of EU law — Inadmissibility

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 21, 22, 54, 55)

2.  The General Court’s examination of a contractual term cannot be considered to be an interpretation of law and cannot therefore be reviewed in the context of an appeal without encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the General Court to establish the facts. By contrast, the alleged infringement of EU law applicable to contracts is subject to a review by the Court such as that carried out in the context of an appeal.

   (see para. 23)