Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/4040

28.7.2025

(Case C-389/25 P)

(C/2025/4040)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Ausnit, Olariu și Asociații SRL (represented by: F. Irimia, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

declare that the General Court’s decision is unlawful and must be annulled or varied in order to uphold the action and annul the Commission’s decision, either in whole or in part, since:

—the decision has no legal basis in so far as it was vitiated by misinterpreting and misapplying the provisions of Article II.19.1(f) of the grant agreement in relation to Article 30 of Regulation No 966/2012;

—is issued in breach of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012 in the application of the provisions of Article II.27.6 of the grant agreement, in breach of Article II.25.4 of the agreement and in breach of Article 5 TFEU and the provisions of Additional Protocol No 2;

—it infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1)The rejection of the first complaint in the action is unlawful, since the General Court’s decision was vitiated by misinterpreting and misapplying the provisions of Article II.19.1(f) of the grant agreement in relation to Article II.9.5 of that agreement, with misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 30 of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) applicable to the agreement in accordance with Article 279(3) of Regulation No 2018/1046. (2) In the context of this ground, it is also complained that the General Court distorted the substance of the applicant’s complaints, which is why some of the arguments were not analysed, and it is argued that the General Court unlawfully reversed the burden of proof. Similarly, the General Court’s decision should also found to be unlawful as a result of the inadequacy of the statement of reasons, but also the contradictory nature of the arguments.

(2)The rejection of the applicant’s second complaint in the action is unlawful, since the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, in holding that the Commission’s decision correctly applied the provisions of Article II.27.6 of the grant agreement, and that there was no breach of the provisions of Article II.25.4.of the agreement or of the provisions of Article 5 TFEU and the provisions of Additional Protocol No 2. In the context of this ground, the appellant also raises, as grounds of illegality, both the contradictory or insufficient reasoning and also the General Court’s failure to examine and give a reasoned ruling on the argument that, as long as the final reports and accounts were approved, the Commission could no longer take the measures provided for in Article 135(2) and (3) to order recovery of the entire financing, but only the measures referred to in paragraphs 4 or 7 of Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012. It was also submitted that the General Court misinterpreted Article II.27.6(2) of the grant agreement, that a plea could not be advanced, against the applicant, relying on the circumstance that the audit carried out in the present case failed to set a revised final amount on the basis of concrete calculations, and that, therefore, in the absence of those calculations, the repayment of the entire financing was ordered unlawfully, just as the recovery of the financing in full, and not in part, was unlawful, the General Court’s decision being based on contradictory reasoning on that point. Illegality has also been invoked on the ground that the General Court did not penalise the conduct of the Commission which had failed to examine the proportionality of the breach of the obligation or the proportionality of the failure to implement, and thereby infringed the provisions of Article II.25.4 of the grant agreement and the principle of proportionality, with the General Court’s reasoning on that point (in paragraph 102, on the one hand, and paragraphs 10 and 104, on the other) being contradictory.

(3)The rejection of the applicant’s third complaint in the action is unlawful, since the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In the context of this ground, it has been asserted that the applicant had a legitimate expectation that the contract in question would be applied in accordance with Article II.9.1. of the grant agreement, in which the ‘lowest price’ criterion remained mentioned alongside the criterion of ‘best price-quality ratio’ and no mention was made of the obligation to adopt other, more complex criteria in the selection procedure. It has also been advanced that the General Court failed to analyse and give a reasoned ruling on the consequences for the other contracting party of the legal nature of the grant agreement as a standard-form contract which was not, however, drafted in sufficiently clear and explicit terms so as to leave no room for any doubt as to its interpretation, as well as the fact that the General Court misinterpreted the fulfilment of the requirements for that principle to be effective.

—

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4040/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—