EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/60

(Case T-653/22)

(2022/C 463/89)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Silex Ipari Automatizálási Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission Decision No C(2022) 5863 of 9 August 2022 relating to the recovery of EUR 27 726,44(twenty-seven thousand seven hundred twenty-six euro and forty-four cents) and late payment interest from Silex Ipari Automatizálizasi Zrt.; and

—order the Commission to pay the costs, even if the applicant is unsuccessful, since the principle of sound administration was infringed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

1.First, second and third pleas in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of sound financial management.

—The Commission breached its obligation to state reasons, made a manifest error of assessment, and breached the principle of sound financial management by basing its Decision No C(2022) 5863 final of 9 August 2022, under which the applicant is required to pay 27 726,44 euros plus interest, on

—the first annual revised report of the Executive Agency for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (‘EASME’) of 25 April 2018, adopted after an on-site review that took place on in March 2018;

—EASME’s letter of 15 June 2018, indicating for the first time its intention to terminate the grant agreement bearing the reference 739280 ELECTRIC_AXLE, concluded between the applicant and EASME, and the statement of reasons for that letter;

—EASME’s letter of 8 October 2018 effectively terminating the grant agreement and the statement of reasons for that letter, and

—EASME’s final report of 31 July 2019.

2.Fourth plea in law alleging breach of the principle of sound administration

—The Commission breached the principle of sound administration

—by failing to examine the merits of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the manner in which EASME acted in implementing the grant agreement; and

—by claiming in the contested decision that the applicant had not responded to the payment notices and payment reminders.