Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 18 May 2010 - Commission v EU Research Projects

(Case T-220/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Bambara, agent and C. Erkelens, lawyer)

Defendant: EU Research Projects Ltd (Hungerford, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

Order the defendant to reimburse to the Commission the principal amount of EUR 102,039.32 plus the accrued interest of default to be calculated at a rate of 4.80% from 28 December 2006 until the date of payment of the due amount; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission brought the present application, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, in order to seek reimbursement of the amount allegedly overpaid to the defendant, which is EUR 102,039.32, plus interest calculated at the rate of 4,80% from the date on which the debt was due, i.e. 28 December 2006.

Under the European Community's fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998 - 2002), the Commission signed with, among others, the defendant a "contract for research and technological development projects", identified by number IST-2001-34850. The sum claimed by the applicant under the said contract is equivalent to the difference between the advance payment paid to the defendant and the total eligible costs accepted by the applicant, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the contract, as a consequence of the defendant's request of withdrawal from the project and further to its non-compliance with the relevant contractual obligations.

In support of its application, the Commission raises a single plea in law: the Commission contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse to the Commission the difference between the Commission's financial contribution due to defendant and the total amount of advance funding already received by it. The financial contribution due to the defendant is less than the total amount paid by the applicant by means of an advance payment. Furthermore, under Belgian law, which the law applicable to the contract, what has been paid without it being due (undue payment) can be claimed back. The Commission contends therefore that the defendant is liable for the sum due.

____________