21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/28

(Case T-601/15)

(2015/C 429/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: E. De Boissieu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—order the Commission to pay CEVA the amount of EUR 59 103,21, in accordance with the Grant Agreement;

—order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With this application, the applicant seeks an order for the payment by the Commission of the first instalment of the financial contribution granted in implement of the SEABIOPLAS contract and the Grant Agreement, concerning a research and technological development project in the field of ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’, following the offsetting of that amount by the Commission of its own motion by way of recovery of the sums paid to the applicant under the PROTOP contract, in accordance with the findings of a financial audit by OLAF.

In support of the action, the applicant relies, essentially, on a single plea in law, alleging errors committed by the Commission which prevented the recovery by offsetting claims against sums paid to the applicant by the Commission. The applicant claims, in essence, that the conditions for recovery by offsetting were not met. First, the claim of the Commission against the applicant was neither certain, nor payable. Second, the Commission had not complied with Article 87(2) (recovery by offsetting) and Article 88 (recovery procedure failing voluntary payment) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union. Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has no contractual claim against it. In the alternative, in the event that the Court holds that the offsetting is valid, the applicant submits that the refund of the total amount of the grant it received is contrary to the principle of proportionality and amounts to the unjust enrichment of the Commission.