Action brought on 24 October 2013 – Isotis v European Commission

(Case T-562/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Information Society open to Impairments – ISOTIS (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Skliris, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

declare that the Commission, by seeking from the applicant the sum of EUR 47 197.93 which the Commission paid within the framework of the REACH 112 agreement No 238940, is in breach of the agreement in question;

declare that the applicant is under no obligation to repay the amount which the Commission paid;

declare that, in any event, the abovementioned request by the Commission, to the extent of the amount of EUR 13 821.12, is wholly unfounded;

declare that the general conditions of FP6 contracts are not applicable within the framework of the REACH 112 agreement No 238940 and that, consequently, the applicant is, under the agreement in question, in no way obliged to pay any amount of liquidated damages;

declare that the Commission, by indicating its intent to claim liquidated damages on the basis of the general conditions of FP6 contracts, is in breach of REACH 112 agreement No 238940;

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, which is based on (1) the arbitration clauses in the agreement in question and (2) on Belgian law, which governs the agreement in question, the applicant puts forward three arguments.

The first argument is based on the Commission’s failure to respect the principles of good faith and fair dealing. Specifically, the applicant maintains that the Commission sought differing amounts, but failed to provide concrete and specific reasons for the creation of each claim, and that the Commission’s way of doing business is contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Further, the applicant maintains that the Commission’s intention to make claims on the basis of the general conditions of a different type of contract (FP6) which differ from those which apply in the REACH 112 (CIP) agreement also reveals that the Commission’s conduct is contrary to accepted standards.

The second argument is based on the infringement of the provisions of Article II.28, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the REACH 112 agreement No 238940. Specifically, the applicant maintains that the Commission made claims when there had been no prior audit procedure within the framework of the agreement in question and relied on general and indeterminate audit findings which do not relate to the REACH 112 agreement in question.

The third argument, in the alternative, is that the making of the claim for repayment by the Commission was in bad faith and abusive.