26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/82

(Case T-539/18)

(2018/C 427/109)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet (Quart de Poblet, Spain) (represented by: B. Sanchis Piqueras, J. Rodríguez Pellitero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—declare the action admissible and well founded;

—declare that the applicant has correctly complied with its contractual obligations under the contracts;

—find that, it is, therefore, entitled to the funding in accordance with those contracts;

—declare that the European Commission’s claim for the repayment of certain amounts by the Diego Project and by the SEED Project is unfounded and inadmissible;

—annul the debit notes or, in any event, declare them unlawful;

—order the European Commission to repay the applicant the sums claimed which have been paid by the latter;

—in the alternative, find, in the amount that it deems appropriate, the sums claimed by the Commission to be eligible and/or appropriate funding;

—in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging an incorrect classification of the costs by the European Commission.

—The applicant claims that, by not respecting the terms of the contracts, the European Commission incorrectly classified the costs as direct or indirect and/or not chargeable, based on its auditors’ report, requiring the applicant to repay the funding received for the implementation of the DIEGO and SEED projects.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission incorrectly quantified the costs.

—The applicant contests that quantification as being incorrect in that it does not respect the terms in that regard in the contracts.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to comply with its contractual obligations.

—According to the applicant, the Commission has failed to comply with the terms of the contracts by making an incorrect classification and quantification of the costs charged and continues to fail to comply, in spite of the arguments and evidence presented in the adversarial procedure, thereby demonstrating bad faith.