Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021, Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA, T-108/18

• Date: 24 February 2021
• Year: 2021

3

Member States to respect that right in an investigation carried out in respect of such persons and

capable of establishing their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a

criminal nature, or their criminal liability.

Findings of the Court

In the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to a fair trial,

5

the

Court emphasises that the right to silence, which lies at the heart of the notion of a ‘fair trial’,

precludes, inter alia, penalties being imposed on natural persons who are ‘charged’ for refusing to

provide the competent authority, under Directive 2003/6 or Regulation No 596/2014, with answers

which might establish their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a

criminal nature, or their criminal liability. The Court states, in that regard, that the case-law relating to

the obligation on undertakings to provide , in proceedings that may lead to the imposition of penalties

for anticompetitive conduct, information which may subsequently be used to establish their liability

for such conduct cannot apply by analogy to establish the scope of the right to silence of natural

persons charged with insider dealing. The Court adds that the right to silence cannot, however, justify

every failure to cooperate on the part of the person concerned with the competent authorities, such

as refusing to appear at a hearing planned by those authorities or using delaying tactics designed to

postpone it.

Finally, the Court notes that both Directive 2003/6 and Regulation No 596/2014 lend themselves to an

interpretation which is consistent with the right to silence, in that they do not require penalties to be

imposed on natural persons for refusing to provide the competent authority with answers which

might establish their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a

criminal nature, or their criminal liability. In those circumstances, the absence of an express

prohibition against the imposition of a penalty for such a refusal cannot undermine the validity of

those measures. It is for the Member States to ensure that natural persons cannot be penalised for

refusing to provide such answers to the competent authority.

Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 February

2021

Case T-108/18

Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA

Arbitration clause – Tempus IV Programmes – Grant agreements – Contractual nature of the dispute –

Reclassification of the action – Eligible costs – Systemic and recurrent irregularities – Full repayment of

amounts paid – Proportionality – Right to be heard – Obligation to state reasons – Article 41 of the

Charter of Fundamental Rights

Universität Koblenz-Landau (Germany) (‘the applicant’) is a German higher-education institution

governed by public law.

In 2008 and 2010, within the framework of the European Union’s cooperation with third countries for

the modernisation of the higher-education systems of those countries, the applicant signed three

grant agreements. The first one was signed between the applicant, as sole beneficiary, and the

European Commission. The last two agreements were signed inter alia between the applicant, as

coordinator and co-beneficiary, and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).

The EACEA paid grants to the applicant under these three agreements.

5

This rig ht to a fair trial is also enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950.