(Case T-208/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Universiteit Antwerpen (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—decide that the Grant agreement No 238214 ‘C7’ (Cerebellar-Cortical Control: Cells, Circuits, Computation, and Clinic) and the Grant agreement No 238686 ‘CEREBNET’ (Timing and plasticity in the olivo-cerebellar system), concluded in the seventh framework programme (FP7-PEOPLE-ITN-2008) for support for training and career development of researchers and networks for initial training, cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the beneficiaries to provide training to early-stage researchers exclusively on their own premises and, as a consequence, confirm that REA cannot reject as ineligible part of the costs related to the training of early-stage researchers on the basis of this interpretation;

—condemn REA to the payment of the costs related to the training of the early-stage researchers as reported by the applicant in the context of the ‘C7’ and ‘CEREBNET’ Grant agreements, increased with the interests from the date that the payments are due; and

—order REA to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that REA bases its position on an erroneous interpretation of the ‘C7’ and ‘CEREBNET’ Grant agreements. This first plea in law is divided in three limbs: Restricting the possibility of training to the premises of the beneficiary would be contrary to the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme, the People Programme, the 2008 PWP and the European Charter for researchers (First Limb); it can be inferred from the provisions of the Grant agreements and the Guide for applicants that the obligation for the beneficiaries to provide training can also be fulfilled outside their premises (Second Limb); and no provision(s) of the Grant agreements or any other instrument applicable state(s) that the training should be provided exclusively on the premises of the beneficiary (Third Limb).

2.Second plea in law, alleging that REA’s interpretation violates the principle of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality.