Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3060

10.6.2025

(Case T-650/24)

(C/2025/3060)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: TotalEnergies Charging Services España, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. M. Rodríguez Conde and C. González Silvestre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—first, declare that the decision of 5 August 2024, which gives rise to the debit note, is invalid on the ground that it is not sufficiently reasoned;

—second, in the alternative, declare that all of the costs declared by the applicant in the context of the grant agreement are eligible and, consequently, order the CINEA (a) to reimburse the amount paid by the applicant under the debit note received (b) to pay the outstanding sum due under the grant agreement and (c) to pay default interest on both amounts calculated on the basis of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank, increased by three and a half percentage points, as provided for in the grant agreement;

—third, in the further alternative, declare that the contested decision, which gives rise to the debit note, is manifestly disproportionate in that it denies the receipt of funds in respect of expenditure which, in any event and even if not in full, is eligible and, consequently, declare that that expenditure is eligible and order it to be paid to the applicant, in accordance with the breakdown of the amounts set out in the supplement to the application;

—in any event, order CINEA to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

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 obligation to state reasons enshrined in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is submitted that CINEA failed to examine in a thorough and impartial manner the comments made against the initial assessment of the final balance of the subsidy and that the procedure for determining the final amount of the subsidy could have led to a different result without the alleged irregularity.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article II.19.4 of the General Conditions of the Grant Agreement and Article 191(3) of Regulation 2018/1046 (equivalent to Article 194(3) of the current Financial Regulation). It is submitted that the classification of the costs declared as eligible would not in any way have resulted in those costs being financed twice from the EU budget.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(4) TEU. It is submitted that the contested decision, in classifying as ineligible all the costs declared, is manifestly disproportionate.

—

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/2025/3060/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—