Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 March 2019.Meta Group Srl v European Commission.Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2002-2006) — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — Amounts allegedly owed by the European Commission in relation to the performance of those agreements — Outstanding balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the appellant — Contractual liability.Case C-428/17 P.

Judgment // 14/03/2019 // 2 min read
bookmark

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 — Meta Group v Commission

(Case C‑428/17 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2002-2006) — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — Amounts allegedly owed by the European Commission in relation to the performance of those agreements — Outstanding balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the appellant — Contractual liability)

  1. Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the interpretation of a contract term — Not included / precluded

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169)

(see para. 23)

  1. Appeal — Grounds — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Material inaccuracy of the finding not clear from the case file — Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2))

(see paras 24, 67)

  1. Appeal — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see para. 27)

  1. Appeal — Grounds — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Invalid plea in law

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56, first para.)

(see paras 40, 57, 74)

  1. Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility — Arguments simply constituting an amplification of a plea relied on in the application — Admissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 42)

Operative part

The Court:

  1. dismisses the appeal;

  2. orders Meta Group Srl to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.