Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1439

10.3.2025

(Case T-681/24)

(C/2025/1439)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de investigación para la industria del calzado y conexas (Inescop) (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: C. Morales Ruiz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the contested decision: communication of the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of 28 February 2024 ordering the repayment and recovery of the costs declared under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) in the SMARTPIF, NANOFOOT and DEMOULTRAGRIP projects and the payment of damages by INESCOP to the European Commission, and declare that the debt does not exist because the four-year limitation period has expired for any proceedings brought by the Commission against INESCOP for any irregularity committed within the SMARTPIFF, NANOFOOT and DEMOULTRAGRIP projects, pursuant to the law applicable to the contract (Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests);

—in the alternative, in the event that the principal claim is not upheld, annul the contested decision and declare that the debt does not exist on the ground that the five-year limitation period has expired for any proceedings brought by the Commission against INESCOP for any irregularity committed within the SMARTPIFF, NANOFOOT and DEMOULTRAGRIP projects, pursuant to the law applicable to the contract (Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, applicable ratione temporis (‘Financial Regulation of 2012’);

—in the further alternative, in the event that the claims above are not upheld on the ground that the Commission is bringing administrative proceedings, annul the contested decision and declare that the debt does not exist because the limitation period for any proceedings brought by the Commission against INESCOP for any irregularity committed within the SMARTPIFF, NANOFOOT and DEMOULTRAGRIP projects has expired, irrespective of the application of Regulation No 2988/95 or the Financial Regulation of 2012;

—in the further alternative, in the event that the above claims are not upheld on the ground that the Commission is bringing administrative proceedings, (i) annul the contested decision and declare that the debt does not exist on account of the breach of INESCOP’s fundamental rights, ordering, where appropriate, the initiation of new proceedings guaranteeing INESCOP’s legally recognised linguistic rights, and (ii) consequently, provide INESCOP with a copy in Spanish of each and every one of the communications, decisions, resolutions and reports, including those of OLAF, in order to be able to defend itself effectively in the adversarial proceedings;

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging breach of the Grant Agreements and infringement of the Contract Law: (i) the EU decisions in relation to FP7 and (ii) Council Regulation No 2988/95 (EC, EURATOM) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests.

2.Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging breach of the Grant Agreements and infringement of the Contract Law: the Financial Regulation of 2012.

3.Third plea in law, in the further alternative, in the event that the Commission has brought administrative proceedings, alleging that its right to bring those proceedings against INESCOP is time-barred pursuant to Regulation No 2988/95 and the Financial Regulation of 2012.

4.Fourth plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging breach of the Grant Agreements in relation to the correct interpretation of Article 4 thereof and of the principal of contractual good faith and equality between the parties.

5.Fifth plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging breach of the fundamental right to address the Commission in one of the languages of the Treaties and to obtain a response in that same language.

(1) OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1.