23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/40

(Case T-407/21)

(2021/C 338/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PB (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—declare the present action admissible and well-founded; consequently,

—annul the Commission’s decision of 5 May 2021, notified on 10 May 2021, relating to the recovery, respectively, of (i) EUR 4 241 507 (TACIS/2006/101-510 contract) (the principal amount) or of EUR 4 674 256,92 (the principal amount plus default interest as at 30 April 2021) and (ii) EUR 1 197 055,86 (CARDS/2008/166-429 contract) (the principal amount) or EUR 1 298 608,85 (the principal amount plus default interest as at 30 April 2021) from which EUR 399 825 must be deducted;

—order the repayment of any amounts recovered by the Commission on the basis of that decision, together with default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank, increased by seven percentage points;

—order the payment of EUR 10 000 by way of damages, subject to increase;

—order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Financial Regulation, in that the Commission has no means for claiming repayment from the applicant and, in any case, no claim that is certain.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, due diligence, and the principle of impartiality enshrined by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant claims that, in order to justify initiating recovery proceedings, the contested decision states that there was no response to the debit note, the reminder or the letter of formal notice. In doing so, the defendant failed to state, first, that the applicant disputed the latter documents and, second, that the Belgian court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the action brought before it by HB on the basis of the two contracts. The applicant adds that the defendant also disregarded its obligation to state reasons, since it failed to explain the reasons that led it to decide as it did in the present case. Lastly, the applicant takes the view that the Commission failed to examine, carefully and impartially, all of the relevant elements of the case in point.

3.Third plea in law, alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Commission to adopt decisions forming writs of execution, lack of legal basis and manifest error of assessment. The applicant claims that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to adopt the two decisions forming writs of execution for the recovery of the amount allegedly due to it from the economic operator, of which the applicant is the director and who the Commission holds to be jointly and severally liable, in the absence of an arbitration clause conferring on the EU Courts jurisdiction for contractual disputes between them. The applicant takes the view that if the Commission does not have jurisdiction to adopt the two decisions against that operator, it also cannot have jurisdiction to do so against the applicant, since the cause of its action is contractual in nature.