C_2020297EN.01004701.xml

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — VeriGraft v EASME

(Case T-457/20)

(2020/C 297/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VeriGraft AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Hansson and M. Persson, lawyers)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	find and declare that EASME’s recovery order concerning costs amounting to in total EUR 258 588,80 is invalid;

—	find and declare that the costs rejected by EASME (in whole or in part) amounting to in total EUR 258 588,80 constitute eligible costs;

—	find and declare that EASME’s debit note of EUR 106 928,74 is invalid; and,

—	order EASME to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the recovery order infringes the right to good administration:

—

from the recovery order, including annexes, it is not possible to understand what specific costs were rejected by EASME, and on what basis these costs were rejected. The right to good administration enshrined in article 41 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and more specifically the obligation to state reasons, is therefore infringed.

Second plea in law, alleging that the rejected costs are eligible under the grant agreement:

—	the rejected costs are in any event eligible under the terms of the grant agreement concluded between VERIGRAFT and EASME as they were mentioned in the grant agreement and reported in periodic reports approved by EASME.

Third plea in law, alleging that the debit note is in any event invalid as VERIGRAFT rejected costs are eligible under the grant agreement:

—	VERIGRAFT has incurred costs that exceed those that EASME seek to recover through the recovery order and the debit note is thus, in any event, invalid also on this ground.