Judgment of the General Court First Chamber of 27 April 2022, Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz – Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii v Commission, T-4/20

• Date: 27 April 2022
• Year: 2022

63

person concerned are well founded, it is necessary that the information or evidence produced should

support the reasons relied on. In that regard, the Court observes that it was common ground

between the parties that Mr Ilunga Luyoyo had not held a position within the PNC since December

2019 and that the Council had that information when the time came to review the restrictive

measures at issue.

The Court then points out that restrictive measures are of a precautionary and, by definition,

provisional nature, and their validity always depends on whether the factual and legal circumstances

which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to persist with them in order to achieve

their objective. It is for the Council, in the course of its periodic review of those measures, to carry out

an updated assessment of the situation and to appraise the impact of such measures.

The Court finds, in the present case, that the evidence relied on by the Council is not capable of

establishing a link between human rights violations and Mr Ilunga Luyoyo since December 2019,

which is almost one year before the adoption of the contested measures, or demonstrating that

Mr Ilunga Luyoyo may have been reinstated to any position in connection with the security situation

in the DRC. Moreover, the fact that Mr Ilunga Luyoyo retained his rank of General does not in itself

permit the inference that he could have exercised any influence whatsoever on the security forces in

the DRC. As regards Mr Ilunga Luyoyo’s duties as President of the Congolese Boxing Federation, there

is no concrete information in the articles produced by the Council to justify the view that the holder of

that position may have an influence on security policy in the DRC, or to suggest that Mr Ilunga Luyoyo

carried out highly politicised duties in that capacity.

Since the Council has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support the view that there was still a

sufficient link between Mr Ilunga Luyoyo and the security situation which gave rise to the human

rights violations in the DRC, even though, for a considerable period of time before the adoption of the

contested measures, he had not held the various positions which had justified the inclusion of his

name on the lists in question, the Court also considers that the Council could not legitimately rely on

the fact that Mr Ilunga Luyoyo had not dissociated himself from the regime formerly in power in the

DRC to support its decision to maintain the restrictive measures against him.

10. BUDGET AND SUBSIDIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: GRANT

AGREEMENT

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2022, Sieć Bad awcza

Łukasiewicz – Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii v Commission, T-4/20

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Arbitration clause – Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for

research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Eligible costs – Request

for reimbursement – Financial audit – OLAF investigation – Conflict of interest o n account o f family or

emotional ties – Principle of good faith – Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of marital status –

Legitimate expectations – Action for annulment – Debit notes – Acts inseparable from the contract – Act

not open to challenge – Right to effective judicial review – Inadmissibility

The applicant, Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz, is a research institute which acceded, as a beneficiary, to

three grant agreements under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for

research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013).

In 2013, certain grant agreements concluded in that context were the subject of an audit carried out

by an external auditing firm engaged by the Commission. Later on, in the context of an investigation,

the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) accused the applicant of complicity in the false declarations

made on the timesheets of certain of its employees. On the basis of OLAF’s conclusions, the

Commission issued debit notes requiring the payment of certain amounts by way of damages. The