Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/4056

(Case T-343/25)

(C/2025/4056)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GEA J.-M. Vallotton et T. Chanard architectes-urbanistes FSU SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Rapin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare that it has jurisdiction to hear the present dispute pursuant to Article 272 TFEU and the arbitration clauses of the CATS and CityMobil2 Agreements;

—declare that the Commission breached its contractual obligations;

—order the Commission to pay the costs;

—reject the Commission counterclaim;

primarily

—annul the confirmation letter of the Commission and the debit notes no 2518003055 and no 2518003089;

—declare that the amount of EUR 31 885,29 by way of liquidated damages plus interests as of 4 May 2025 for the CATS and CityMobil2 projects claimed in the debit note no 2518003089 is not due by the applicant;

—declare that the amount of EUR 318 852,89 by way of unjustified contribution plus interests as of 4 May 2025 for the CATS and CityMobil2 projects claimed in the debit note no 251800305 is not due by the applicant;

subsidiarily

—annul the confirmation letter of the Commission;

—if assuming that the applicant is required to repay a certain amount in the CATS and CityMobil2 projects, declare that this amount may not exceed EUR 63 615,28.

more subsidiarily

—return the case to the Commission for a new decision, taking into account the hours claimed by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to good administration.

The applicant claims that the defendant breached this right in the handling of the CATS and CityMobil2 projects by refusing to hear a key witness who could confirm procedural shortcomings. Additionally, the applicant contends the Defendant conducted the audit and recovery procedure with excessive delays—over nine years—far exceeding the reasonable five-year limit established by case law and the Grant Agreements.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the Swiss-EU FP7 Research bilateral Agreement.

The defendant failed to notify the Swiss authorities before auditing the applicant’s premises in Switzerland. Although the defendant argued that prior notification is not a legal prerequisite for conducting audits, the applicant contends that this procedural step remains a mandatory aspect of the special bilateral relationship between the EU and Switzerland, which differs from the treatment of EU member states.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article II.14 paragraph 1 of the European Commission’s General Conditions for Grant Agreements, by arbitrarily rejecting eligible costs without proper justification.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the proportionality principle under Article 5(4) TEU by taking actions that exceed what is necessary

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the legitimate expectation and good faith principle.

The applicant argues that it received specific and consistent assurances from the defendant that the final audit report would be based on a global assessment including both scientific and administrative aspects, creating legitimate expectations in line with the established case law.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4056/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—