Action brought on 31 January 2011 - ISOTIS v Commission

(Case T-59/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Information Society open to impairmentS - ISOTIS (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant asks the General Court to:

Declare that the applicant has in no way infringed Article ΙΙ.16.2 of the general conditions of the FP6 contracts, Articles ΙΙ.7.3 (serious financial regularity) and ΙΙ.7.4 (false declarations) of the general conditions of the eTEN contracts and Article ΙΙ.10.3 (breach of contract and failure to provide information) of the general conditions of the CIP contracts;

Declare that by calling into question the eligibility of the applicant's costs the Commission has infringed the contracts in question;

Declare that the costs amounting to EUR 932 362.44 which the applicant submitted to the Commission in connection with the ACCESS-eGOV, EU4ALL, eABILITIES, EMERGE, ENABLE, ASK-IT, NAVIGABILE, EURIDICE and T-SENIORITY contracts are eligible costs and that the applicant is not obliged to repay the sums contributed by the Commission;

Declare that Commission's delay in paying the final funding payments in respect of the EU4ALL, ASK-IT and ENABLE contracts constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations;

Declare that the Commission must pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 52 584.05 in interest from the notification of this action, in respect of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the EU4ALL contract;

Declare that the Commission must pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 20 678.61 in interest from the notification of this action, in respect of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the ASK-IT contract;

Declare that the Commission must pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 11 693.05 interest from the notification of this action, in respect of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the ENABLE contract;

Order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First, the applicant maintains that the costs which it submitted to the Commission were eligible costs and that it has not infringed its contractual obligations. In particular, the applicant maintains that the objections which the Commission sent to it after the financial audit checks on the ACCESS-eGOV, EU4ALL, eABILITIES, EMERGE, ENABLE, ASK-IT, NAVIGABILE, EURIDICE and T-SENIORITY programmes in respect of its economic management and the eligibility of its costs are wholly unfounded. Accordingly, there was no infringement of its contractual obligations and all of its costs must be declared to be eligible costs.

Second, by calling into question the eligibility of the costs and by delaying the payment of certain costs the Commission is in breach of its contractual obligations. In particular, the applicant maintains that the Commission's questioning of the eligibility of the costs constitutes a breach of contract, contrary to the principle of good faith and an abuse of rights, because the findings which were drawn from the financial audit were entirely unsupported, vague and general. Moreover, the applicant maintains that the Commission's delay in paying the final funding payments in respect of the EU4ALL, ASK-IT and ENABLE contracts constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations and the applicant seeks a declaration that the Commission is obliged to make payment.

____________