Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/8

—

(Case C-224/15 P)

(2015/C 228/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Rose Vision, S.L. (represented by: J.J. Marín López, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2015 in Case T-45/13 Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission, EU:T:2015:138;

—annul the decisions to suspend payments adopted by the Commission and by other European Union bodies (in particular, the Research Executive Agency) in the context of audits 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016, with the consequences indicated in paragraph 51 of the appeal;

—declare that the Commission breached the contractual terms of the FutureNEM project grant agreement relating to the confidentiality obligation, and must therefore compensate Rose Vision in the terms set out in paragraph 93 of the appeal;

—declare that the Commission incurred tortious liability as regards Rose Vision by including it in alert level W2 of the Early Warning System (EWS) established by Decision 2008/969/EC (1), Euratom, on the Early Warning System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies, and suspending the payments, and must therefore compensate it for the property or pecuniary damage and the non-pecuniary damage indicated in paragraph 122 of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.Error of law consisting in finding that there was an extension of the time limit laid down in paragraph 5 of point II.22 of general conditions FP7 for the presentation of the final versions of audit reports 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016 (paragraphs 93 and 95 of the judgment under appeal) and that the Commission did not breach the grant agreement (paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal).

2.Error of law consisting in the failure to state reasons for the assertion that the draft report of audit 11-INFS-025 ‘already showed the existence of certain ineligible personnel costs as well as the infringement of certain contractual provisions, which was confirmed in the final version of the audit report’ (paragraph 99 of the judgment under appeal).

3.Error of law consisting in stating, as regard audit report 11-INFS-025, that Rose Vision ‘had not put forward any evidence capable of calling into question the findings in that audit report’ (paragraph 101 of the judgment under appeal) and that the Commission had not breached the grant agreement (paragraph 102 of the judgment under appeal).

4.Error of law consisting in denying the existence of a breach of the contractual provisions of the FutureNEM project grant agreement relating to the confidentiality obligation (paragraph 104 of the judgment under appeal).

5.Error of law consisting in rejecting the European Union’s liability for the damage arising from Rose Vision’s inclusion in alert level W2 of the Early Warning System (EWS) established by Decision 2008/969/EC, and the suspensions of payment to Rose Vision (paragraph 120 of the judgment under appeal).

*

(1) OJ 2008 L 344, p. 125.

—