Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 —
ANKO v Commission

(Case T‑17/13)

Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Contract concerning the Pocemon project — Repayment of the sums advanced — Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note — Reminder letter — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility

1.                     Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — To be considered of the Court’s own motion — Requirement that an interest in bringing proceedings subsist until the delivery of the court decision (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 113 and 114(3) and (4)) (see para. 30)

2.                     Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court defined exclusively by Article 272 TFEU and the arbitration clause — Application of national provisions on jurisdiction and admissibility — Exclusion (Art. 272 TFEU) (see para. 31)

3.                     Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme — Unilateral termination by the Commission based on non-performance of contractual obligations — Request for repayment of advances — Action brought by the beneficiary against the Commission’s letter announcing its intention to issue a debit note — Conditions for payment and due date not fixed — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Application inadmissible (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 71(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 78 and 79) (see paras 38, 39, 46-51, 53)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration by the General Court first, that the applicant is not obliged to repay the whole sum paid to it by the Commission in relation to the Pocemon project, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation in relation to that project and, thirdly, that the Commission is not entitled to set off the amounts that it owes to the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.