Orders nº T-188/19 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, October 24, 2019

• Resolution Date: October 24, 2019
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-188/19

(Action for annulment - Research and technological development and space - Seventh framework programme of the Union - Audit - Failure to fill out work timesheets - Personnel costs declared ineligible - Decision of the Commission to adopt the audit report as final - Inadmissibility)

In Case T-188/19,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by S. Brandon and Z. Lavery, acting as Agents, and by T. Johnston and J. Scott, Barristers,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by R. Lyal, A. Kyratsou and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that, in adopting as final the Final Audit Report, bearing reference number 14-BA 226-013 concerning the implementation of the Combine, EUFAR and THOR grant agreements the beneficiary of which is the Met Office, the national meteorological service attached, within the United Kingdom Government, to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Commission failed correctly to interpret and apply the contractual provisions relating to those projects,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed, at the time of deliberation, of A.M. Collins, President, R. Barents (Rapporteur) and J. Passer, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Background to the dispute

1 The European Commission has concluded with the Met Office, the national meteorological service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, three sets of grant agreements (226520-Combine, 227159-EUFAR and 212643-THOR) in order to finance part of the costs of research projects under the seventh framework programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (‘the grant agreements’).

2 By letter of 28 January 2015, the Commission informed the Met Office that a firm of chartered accountants had been appointed to carry out an audit of the three research projects, pursuant to Article II.22 of Annex 2 to the grant agreements.

3 On 19 February 2016, the appointed accounting firm notified the Met Office of a preliminary audit report, which found all personnel and indirect costs to be ineligible.

4 On 16 March 2016, the Met Office took formal note of all the points on which the appointed firm of chartered accountants had made an error of law or of interpretation, providing evidence. That firm provided its observations in the final audit report.

5 By a registered letter of 20 December 2018, notified to the United Kingdom on 21 January 2019, the Commission adopted as final the Final Audit Report, bearing reference number 14-BA 262-013 (‘the contested letter’).

Procedure and forms of order sought

6 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 1 April 2019, the United Kingdom brought the present action.

7 By separate document, lodged at the Court Registry on 14 May 2019, the Commission raised a plea of inadmissibility under Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

8 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 3 July 2019, the United Kingdom submitted its observations concerning the plea of inadmissibility.

9 In the application, the United Kingdom claims that the Court should:

- annul the contested letter;

- order the Commission to pay the costs.

10 In the plea of inadmissibility, the Commission contends that the Court should:

- dismiss the action as manifestly inadmissible;

- order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

11 In its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, the United Kingdom claims that the Court should:

- declare the application admissible and proceed under Article 263 TFEU;

- order the Commission to bear the costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility.

Law

12 Under Article 130(1) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, if the defendant so requests, the Court may give a ruling on inadmissibility or lack of competence without going to the substance of the case.

13 In the present case, as the Commission has applied for a decision on inadmissibility, the Court, finding that it has sufficient information from the documents in the case file, has decided to rule on that application without taking further steps in the proceedings.

14 In support of the plea of inadmissibility, the Commission puts forward three pleas in law, the first alleging an error in the choice of legal basis, the second alleging that there is a lack of standing and the third alleging the absence of a challengeable act.

15 In its first plea, the Commission pleads the...