Fons Iuris
Torna alla ricerca
Corte di giustizia UEsentenza

Corte di giustizia UE n. 71/2017

ECLI:EU:T:2017:260
Testo integrale del provvedimento

Testo integrale del provvedimento

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA])

6 April 2017 ( * ) (Arbitration clause — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agreement concluded in the framework of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑238/16,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA],

established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Velardo, avocat, applicant, v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] SARL,

established in Tauriac (France), defendant, ACTION brought on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 272 TFEU for an order that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] repay the sum advanced under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 287071, together with default interest,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]),

composed of S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], L. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and R. da [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: E. Coulon, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to the dispute 1 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 71/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2008 L 30, p. 1) provides that this undertaking contributes to the implementation of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 558/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2014 L 169, p. 77), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 replaced and succeeded the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concluded grant agreement No 287071 on 2 August 2011 with a company under French law, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SARL, concerning the project titled ‘Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment’ (‘the grant agreement’). 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is designated in the grant agreement as the beneficiary acting as coordinator of the consortium of all the beneficiaries. 4 Pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6 of the grant agreement, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] paid [OSCURATO:PERSONA] an advance of EUR 60 000 to be distributed among the beneficiaries. 5 Articles 3 and 4 of the grant agreement state that the duration of the project which is the subject of the grant agreement is to be 30 months divided into three reporting periods, the first two of 12 months and the third of 6 months. 6 Point II.4.1 of Annex II to the grant agreement states that the consortium is to submit a periodic report for each of the periods specified in point 5 above within 60 days of the end of each respective period.

The report is to comprise an overview of the progress of work, an explanation of the use of resources, and a financial statement by each beneficiary, together with a summary financial report. 7 The first reporting period of the project came to an end on 31 August 2012. 8 By letter dated 22 July 2013, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that it had not received the ‘periodic and financial reports’ for the first reporting period of the project within the period specified at point II.4.1 of Annex II to the grant agreement.

It requested [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to meet its obligations within 30 days following receipt of the letter. 9 Having received no reply from [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed the latter by letter dated 14 November 2013 of the termination of the grant agreement pursuant to point II.38 of Annex II to that agreement. 10 Several other letters having gone unanswered, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] issued a debit note for the amount of EUR 60 000 with a due date of 11 September 2014.

The letter attached to the note informed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that, if the payment had not been made by the due date, then interest would be payable on the sum to be repaid. 11 Point II.21.2 of Annex II to the grant agreement states on this point that, if the obligation to repay is not honoured by the date set by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], then the sum due will bear interest for late payment, calculated at a rate specified in point II.5.5 of Annex II to the grant agreement, i.e. the interest rate applied by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECB) for its main refinancing operations on the first day of the month during which the time limit set by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for repayment is reached, plus three and a half points.

This last point also specifies that the interest for late repayment covers the period between the final date for repayment, exclusive, and the date of final payment, inclusive. 12 It is apparent from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2014 C 295, p. 2) that the rate applied by the ECB for its main refinancing operations was fixed, on 1 December 2006, at 0.15%.

Procedure and forms of order sought 13 By application lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 17 May 2016, the applicant, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought the present action. 14 The application was served on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 28 May 2016 by registered post with a form for acknowledgement of receipt. 15 The defendant having lodged no defence within the period prescribed, the applicant, on 15 September 2016, applied to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for judgment by default, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 123(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure. 16 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] served this application on [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which submitted no comments. 17 The applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: – order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the sum of EUR 60 000 corresponding to the amount of the advance paid to it; – order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay it the sum of EUR 3 600 by way of default interest calculated at a rate of 3.65% for the period from 12 September 2014 to 3 May 2016; – order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the sum of six euro per day by way of default interest from 4 May 2016 and until the amount due is repaid; – order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs.

Law 18 In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 123(3) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to give judgment in favour of the applicant in the judgment by default, unless it is clear that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action or that the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law. 19 In the present case, first, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] clearly does have jurisdiction to hear the action, in the light, in particular, of the arbitration clause within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 272 TFEU, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 9(2) of the grant agreement, and in the light of the provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 10(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 71/2008, reproduced in essence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 10(1)(a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 558/2014, according to which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has jurisdiction pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in agreements or contracts concluded by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 20 Secondly, the action is not manifestly inadmissible. 21 Third, in the light of the background to the dispute in points 3 to 12 above, corresponding to the description of the facts submitted by the applicant in the application and substantiated by the documents in the file, the action is not manifestly lacking any foundation in law. 22 Consequently, the applicant’s form of order sought should be granted (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 May 2016, Commission v McCarron Poultry , T‑226/14, EU:T:2016:313, paragraphs 39 to 41). 23 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must be ordered to repay the applicant the sum of EUR 60 000, together with default interest calculated at 3.65% per annum — that is, 0.15% plus three and a half points, rates corresponding to default interest of six euro per day — from 12 September 2014 and until the date of full payment of the amount due.

Costs 24 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant.

On those grounds,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA])

hereby:

1. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SARL to repay the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the sum of EUR 60 000, together with accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 3.65% per annum from 12 September 2014 until the date of full payment of the amount due;

2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs.

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 April 2017. E. Coulon

G. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]

* Language of the case: English.

Anonimizzato ex art. 52 D.Lgs. 196/2003
[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 6 April 2017 ( * ) (Arbitration clause — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agreement concluded in the framework of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑238/16, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Velardo, avocat, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SARL, established in Tauriac (France), defendant, ACTION brought on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 272 TFEU for an order that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] repay the sum advanced under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 287071, together with default interest, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], L. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and R. da [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: E. Coulon, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to the dispute 1 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 71/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2008 L 30, p. 1) provides that this undertaking contributes to the implementation of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 558/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2014 L 169, p. 77), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 replaced and succeeded the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concluded grant agreement No 287071 on 2 August 2011 with a company under French law, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SARL, concerning the project titled ‘Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment’ (‘the grant agreement’). 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is designated in the grant agreement as the beneficiary acting as coordinator of the consortium of all the beneficiaries. 4 Pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6 of the grant agreement, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] paid [OSCURATO:PERSONA] an advance of EUR 60 000 to be distributed among the beneficiaries. 5 Articles 3 and 4 of the grant agreement state that the duration of the project which is the subject of the grant agreement is to be 30 months divided into three reporting periods, the first two of 12 months and the third of 6 months. 6 Point II.4.1 of Annex II to the grant agreement states that the consortium is to submit a periodic report for each of the periods specified in point 5 above within 60 days of the end of each respective period. The report is to comprise an overview of the progress of work, an explanation of the use of resources, and a financial statement by each beneficiary, together with a summary financial report. 7 The first reporting period of the project came to an end on 31 August 2012. 8 By letter dated 22 July 2013, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that it had not received the ‘periodic and financial reports’ for the first reporting period of the project within the period specified at point II.4.1 of Annex II to the grant agreement. It requested [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to meet its obligations within 30 days following receipt of the letter. 9 Having received no reply from [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed the latter by letter dated 14 November 2013 of the termination of the grant agreement pursuant to point II.38 of Annex II to that agreement. 10 Several other letters having gone unanswered, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] issued a debit note for the amount of EUR 60 000 with a due date of 11 September 2014. The letter attached to the note informed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that, if the payment had not been made by the due date, then interest would be payable on the sum to be repaid. 11 Point II.21.2 of Annex II to the grant agreement states on this point that, if the obligation to repay is not honoured by the date set by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], then the sum due will bear interest for late payment, calculated at a rate specified in point II.5.5 of Annex II to the grant agreement, i.e. the interest rate applied by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECB) for its main refinancing operations on the first day of the month during which the time limit set by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for repayment is reached, plus three and a half points. This last point also specifies that the interest for late repayment covers the period between the final date for repayment, exclusive, and the date of final payment, inclusive. 12 It is apparent from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2014 C 295, p. 2) that the rate applied by the ECB for its main refinancing operations was fixed, on 1 December 2006, at 0.15%. Procedure and forms of order sought 13 By application lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 17 May 2016, the applicant, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought the present action. 14 The application was served on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 28 May 2016 by registered post with a form for acknowledgement of receipt. 15 The defendant having lodged no defence within the period prescribed, the applicant, on 15 September 2016, applied to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for judgment by default, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 123(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure. 16 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] served this application on [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which submitted no comments. 17 The applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the sum of EUR 60 000 corresponding to the amount of the advance paid to it; –        order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay it the sum of EUR 3 600 by way of default interest calculated at a rate of 3.65% for the period from 12 September 2014 to 3 May 2016; –        order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the sum of six euro per day by way of default interest from 4 May 2016 and until the amount due is repaid; –        order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. Law 18 In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 123(3) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to give judgment in favour of the applicant in the judgment by default, unless it is clear that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action or that the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law. 19 In the present case, first, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] clearly does have jurisdiction to hear the action, in the light, in particular, of the arbitration clause within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 272 TFEU, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 9(2) of the grant agreement, and in the light of the provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 10(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 71/2008, reproduced in essence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 10(1)(a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 558/2014, according to which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has jurisdiction pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in agreements or contracts concluded by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 20 Secondly, the action is not manifestly inadmissible. 21 Third, in the light of the background to the dispute in points 3 to 12 above, corresponding to the description of the facts submitted by the applicant in the application and substantiated by the documents in the file, the action is not manifestly lacking any foundation in law. 22 Consequently, the applicant’s form of order sought should be granted (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 May 2016, Commission v McCarron Poultry , T‑226/14, EU:T:2016:313, paragraphs 39 to 41). 23 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must be ordered to repay the applicant the sum of EUR 60 000, together with default interest calculated at 3.65% per annum — that is, 0.15% plus three and a half points, rates corresponding to default interest of six euro per day — from 12 September 2014 and until the date of full payment of the amount due. Costs 24 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SARL to repay the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the sum of EUR 60 000, together with accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 3.65% per annum from 12 September 2014 until the date of full payment of the amount due; 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 April 2017. E. Coulon G. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.
Sentenza Corte di giustizia UE n. 71/2017 — Fons Iuris — Fons Iuris