Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/735

10.2.2025

(Case T-609/24)

(C/2025/735)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GK (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare that the REA has breached its contractual obligations under the Grant Agreement 101135088 — SHIELD4GRAPE, and has acted beyond its competence by prohibiting the coordinator of the SHIELD4GRAPE project from transferring the initial pre-financing of 122 118,75 EUR to the applicant;

—declare that, pursuant to Grant Agreement 101135088, the applicant was legally entitled to receive an initial pre-financing of 122 118,75 EUR, without unjustified delay, as from the 22 January 2024 or, in the alternative, from the moment the REA paid this pre-financing to the bank account of the coordinator of the SHIELD4GRAPE project;

—declare that the REA is liable to pay to the applicant late-payment interest at the rate of 8 % for each day it has prevented the transfer of the initial pre-financing of 122 118,75 EUR to the applicant, and up to the day it withdraws its relevant instruction to the coordinator of the SHIELD4GRAPE project; and,

—order the REA to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the REA infringed Article 41 of the Charter by failing to state reasons for the contested instruction.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the REA exceeded its powers under the Grant Agreement by issuing the contested instruction and that it infringed the provisions of the Grant Agreement regulating the payment of the pre-financing.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the REA infringed the applicant’s right to be heard, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter and Article 133 of the Financial Regulation.

4.Fourth, in the alternative, it is argued that the REA infringed the principle of good faith.

5.Fifth, on a subsidiary basis, it is argued that the REA infringed the principle of proportionality.

6.Sixth, it is argued that the REA is liable to pay-late payment interest at the rate of 8 % for each day it has withheld, by virtue of its instruction, the pre-financing owed to the applicant.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/735/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—