19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/35

(Case T-412/09)

2009/C 312/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) (Paris, France) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, M. Arias Díaz and C. Humpe, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—Acknowledge receipt of the application (application, authority to represent the applicant, together with copies and documents) and declare it admissible;

—examine the application lodged for and on behalf of CEA by its legal representatives;

—pursuant to Article 230 EC, annul the Commission’s decision — notified to CEA by a letter dated 29 July 2009 — refusing to treat the ‘indemnités de départ à la retraite’ (retirement allowances; ‘IDR’) paid by CEA as eligible indirect costs and to grant CEA a certificate on the accounting methodology;

—in the alternative, declare, pursuant to Article 238 EC, (i) that the IDR is an eligible cost in accordance with the contractual provisions of the 7th Research Framework Programme, and (ii) that the European Community has failed to comply with its contractual commitments towards CEA in relation to the 7th Research Framework Programme;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Principally, by its action on the basis of Article 230 EC, the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) seeks the annulment of the Commission’s final decision, notified to CEA on 29 July 2009, refusing to treat the retirement allowances paid by CEA as eligible indirect costs and to grant CEA a certificate on the accounting methodology so that it can declare its indirect personnel costs in order to obtain reimbursement of costs incurred during the implementation of projects which are co-financed in connection with the 7th Research Framework Programme.

CEA takes the view that the Commission’s decision that the retirement allowances do not constitute eligible indirect costs is based on errors of law and manifest errors of assessment of the facts, and that the Commission has failed to have regard to the principles of good administration, legal certainty, proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations.

In the alternative, CEA seeks a declaration on the basis of Article 238 EC that the Commission has failed to comply with its contractual commitments towards CEA by refusing to treat the retirement allowances paid by CEA as eligible costs and, accordingly, to reimburse them.