Language of document :

Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14 Alfamicro v Commission

(Case C-14/18 P)

Language of the case: Portuguese


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14;

refer the case back to the General Court for judgment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;

order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Alfamicro disputes the ruling of the General Court dismissing the action brought by Alfamicro and ordering it to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 277 849.93, together with interest accruing at the daily rate of EUR 26.88 until final payment. Alfamicro submits that the General Court should have ruled on the action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, and not on the basis of Article 272 TFEU. In addition, Alfamicro submits that, in its decision, which is administrative in nature, the Commission, with the acceptance of the General Court, did not observe the principles of proportionality, good faith and legal certainty.

Alfamicro submits that both the analysis and the context of the Commission’s letter of 28 October 2014 show that that letter constitutes a decision-making, administrative act, that is to say, an administrative decision. The terms in which it is drafted, the fact that it is based on an audit of the Court of Auditors, the fact that the Commission extrapolated the conclusions of the audit to all other agreements to which the appellant is a party and the adjustments made by the Commission all point to this being an administrative decision. The judgment of the General Court, which reflects the Court’s opinion that the action brought should be classified as a declarative action and not an action challenging an administrative decision, seriously limits the appellant’s rights of defence. In addition, Alfamicro submits that the General Court seriously infringed the principle of the equality of the parties and the principle of contractual balance.

By reducing the grant agreed with the appellant by more than 93%, the Commission did not take appropriate measures, as was required by the grant agreement, and thus infringed the principle of proportionality. By accepting those actions of the Commission, the General Court fails to observe, and indeed infringes, the principle of proportionality. Moreover, where the Commission is required to take appropriate measures, but only takes inappropriate, arbitrary measures, then there is no legal certainty. By accepting those actions of the Commission, the General Court also fails to observe the principle of legal certainty.