Universiteit Antwerpen v REA (Judgment) [2017] EUECJ T-208/15 (01 March 2017)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

(Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Marie Curie actions — Early-stage researchers — Call for proposals FP7-People-ITN-2008 — Grant agreements — Eligible costs — Recovery of sums paid — Concept of hosting researchers — Proportionality)

Universiteit Antwerpen, established in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, lawyers,

Research Executive Agency (REA), represented by S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers,

ACTION under Article 272 TFEU seeking, first of all, a declaration that Grant Agreements No 238214 ‘C7’ (Cerebellar-Cortical Control: Cells, Circuits, Computation, and Clinic) and No 238686 ‘Cerebnet’ (Timing and plasticity in the olivo-cerebellar system), which were entered into in the context of call for proposals FP7-People-ITN-2008, cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the beneficiaries to provide training to early-stage researchers exclusively on their own premises and, as a consequence, confirmation that the REA cannot reject as ineligible part of the costs relating to the training of three early-stage researchers outside the applicant’s premises; and, secondly, an order that the REA is to pay all the costs related to the training of those early-stage researchers, as claimed by the applicant, together with interest from the date on which the payments were due under the agreements,

composed of M. van der Woude (Rapporteur), President, I. Ulloa Rubio and A. Marcoulli, Judges,

having regard to the written part of the procedure and further to the hearing on 19 July 2016,

1 The Research Executive Agency (REA), acting on behalf of the European Commission, concluded on 16 November 2009 and 23 December 2009, respectively, Grant Agreement No 238214 (‘the C7 agreement’) and Grant Agreement No 238686 (‘the Cerebnet agreement’) with the coordinators of two scientific projects called ‘C7’ and ‘Cerebnet’, for a period of 48 months.

2 The C7 agreement and the Cerebnet agreement (together, ‘the agreements at issue’) were concluded within the framework laid down by Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (OJ 2006 L 412, p. 1, ‘the Seventh Framework Programme’), in particular, within the framework of support activities for early-stage researchers, the so-called ‘Marie Curie’ actions.

3 The applicant, Universiteit Antwerpen (the University of Antwerp, Belgium), participated in the C7 and the Cerebnet projects together with other bodies (‘the C7 consortium’ and ‘the Cerebnet consortium’, respectively) and received grants under the agreements at issue.

4 The Seventh Framework Programme was adopted for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013.

5 On 18 December 2006, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2013) (OJ 2006 L 391, p. 1).

6 In order to help the parties concerned to understand and interpret the financial provisions of the agreements entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme, the Commission, in August 2007, published the Guide to Financial Issues relating to the Seventh Framework Programme Indirect Actions.

7 The Seventh Framework Programme was centred on four types of activities: transnational cooperation on policy-defined themes (‘Cooperation’); investigator-driven research based on initiatives of the scientific community (‘Ideas’); support for training and career development of researchers (‘People’); and support for research capacities (‘Capacities’).

8 Activities under the ‘People’ category were implemented by Council Decision 2006/973/EC of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific programme ‘People’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (OJ 2006 L 400, p. 270, ‘the People Specific Programme’).

9 The People Specific Programme established five so-called ‘Marie Curie’ actions.

10 One of the ‘Marie Curie’ actions concerned the initial training to be given, as a rule, to researchers in the first four years of their careers. The objective of that action was to improve the career perspectives of researchers in both the public and private sectors, thereby making scientific careers more attractive to young people through a transnational networking mechanism called ‘Initial Training Networks’ (‘ITNs’). ITNs were generally made up of at least three participants (for example, universities, research centres, undertakings or SMEs) established in at least three different Member States or associated countries. The action took the form of support to ITNs selected on a competitive basis in the course of a call for proposals.

11 The Commission adopted a work programme for the implementation of the People Specific Programme in 2008 (‘the 2008 People Work Programme’).

12 In that context, the Commission published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4 April 2008 a call for proposals for the initial training of researchers (OJ 2008 C 85, p. 10).

13 The Commission provided more precise information on the call for proposals in the Guide for Applicants for ‘Marie Curie’ Initial Training Networks (FP7-People-ITN-2008) (‘the Guide for Applicants’).

14 Lastly, the Seventh Framework Programme also refers to the European Charter for Researchers and to the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers approved by the Commission on 11 March 2005 (OJ 2005 L 75, p. 67).

15 In performance of the agreements at issue, the applicant recruited four early-stage researchers in 2010. Their names are Messrs C. and W., in the context of the C7 project, and Ms N. and Mr K., in the context of the Cerebnet project.

16 The four researchers were placed under the supervision of Professor S. of the applicant’s Department of Biomedical Sciences. Professor S., who was the principal investigator for the C7 and the Cerebnet projects, had, in addition to his part-time position within the applicant, a part-time position at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, Japan (‘the OIST’).

17 It is apparent from the agreements at issue that the European Union’s financial contribution to the C7 and the Cerebnet projects was to be made in several stages. Within 45 days from the date of entry into force of those agreements, a prefinancing payment was to take place. Mid-term (after 24 months), the REA was to make an interim payment corresponding to the amount of accepted expenditure. Final payment was to be made after approval of the final report.

18 The project coordinators acted as intermediaries in correspondence between the Commission, represented by the REA, and the other beneficiaries of the C7 and the Cerebnet projects. Moreover, financial contribution to the project was paid to the coordinator, who received it on behalf of the beneficiaries and then proceeded to make the payments at issue.

19 The C7 and the Cerebnet projects ended successfully on 1 November 2013 and 1 January 2014, respectively, in compliance with the 48-month period provided for in the agreements at issue.

20 By letter of 18 November 2013, the REA informed the applicant that ‘although the terms of the ... agreements [at issue] ... state that the fellows [were to] be hosted at the beneficiary concerned, it would appear that the fellows [were] instead … hosted at [the OIST], Japan’ and that ‘this institution [was] not a beneficiary in either the Cerebnet or C7 projects’.

– ‘the central administration of our university was much surprised to find out that the early-stage researchers, [Ms N.] and [Mr K.], resided outside of Europe for the main part of their fellowship’;

– ‘it is only self-evident that we will take all the necessary measures with regard to this specific case, but also, for future reference, for the hosting of early-stage researchers within the framework of a Marie Curie ITN as a whole[;] we would like to apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused’;

– ‘[Ms N. and Mr K.] have been registered as regular doctoral students at the University of Antwerp for the duration of their fellowship and have received the necessary guidance from the principal investigator, [Professor S.], who holds a part-time position in [the OIST], as well as from a doctoral commission, specifically installed for this purpose’;

– ‘both early-stage researchers, [Messrs W.] and [C.], have stayed at the host institution in order to perform their research for the entire duration of the fellowship, with the sole exception of a limited amount of time that was spent in [the OIST] ... ’;

– ‘[Messrs W. and C.] have also received the foreseen supervision as stipulated by the guidelines for ITN from the principal investigator and from their doctoral commission’.

– ‘the recruitment of fellows by the [applicant] in the context of an ITN project require[d] that, apart from short secondments to beneficiaries and associated partners within the project consortium, the fellows be based in Antwerp for the duration of their recruitment period’;

– given the fact that the fellows on the Cerebnet project spent ‘the main part’ of their fellowship at the OIST, the costs claims for those periods of time must be regarded as ineligible under the terms of the agreement;

– further information was necessary to determine the exact percentage of time spent by the researchers in Japan, in order to make an accurate assessment of the costs to be rejected.

23 By letter of 27 January 2014, the applicant explained that, according to the information it had, Mr C. never went to Japan but Ms N. and Messrs K. and W. had stayed there, however, for 66%, 76% and 38% of their recruitment period, respectively. With regard specifically to Ms N., the applicant explained that she and Professor S. had a ‘serious conflict’ during the course of the project, leading to the discontinuation of their collaboration as from 1 February 2013 until the end of the contract entered into with the researcher, namely 14 September 2013. In those circumstances, it was Ms N. who had informed the applicant of her activities for the last six months of the project. On the basis of that information, the applicant concluded that Ms N. had spent those six months mainly in Japan.

– ‘all fellows were enrolled as doctoral students at the faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences of the University of Antwerp’;

– ‘the formal doctoral procedures of the University of Antwerp were respected’;

– ‘attendance/participation of the fellows in Antwerp Doctoral School training activities, that can be attended outside the university, were properly monitored according to our database’;

– ‘the [EU] allowance has not been used to cover costs related to the stay in [the OIST], but instead only served to pay the appointment of the fellows ... and to cover costs related to their work in Antwerp, and/or to exchanges and mobility in a European context exclusively’;

– ‘although the mobility rules [were] clear on the host institution’s commitment to “employ” and “host” the fellows, we did not find any indications (or restrictions) as to how long fellows [were] allowed to stay abroad at other scientific institutions in the regulation of the 200[8] ITN call of the Marie Curie Programme’.

25 Finally, the applicant described the measures that it intended to implement for all future ‘Marie Curie’ contracts to ensure that fellows recruited for future ITN projects would be ‘exclusively hosted in Antwerp’.

– ‘the fellows ... were enrolled as doctoral students at the University [of Antwerp] and received adequate training and supervision’;

– ‘the rules regarding the hosting and seconding of fellows under the ITN action are clear’;

– ‘to be eligible for funding, all secondments must constitute no more than 30% of a fellow’s recruitment period and must only take place [with] institutions which are either beneficiaries or associated partners in the project in question’;

– however, ‘in the case of the Cerebnet and C7 projects, [the OIST] was neither a beneficiary nor an associated partner’;

– in addition, ‘no indication was ever given to the REA that the hosting of the [applicant’s] fellows would be conducted in this way’.

27 In those circumstances, the REA considered that it was required to reject all costs related to the periods of time spent by the three researchers concerned in Japan. The REA nonetheless indicated, in that letter, that it was ‘prepared to accept those costs for these fellows that relate to time spent in Antwerp, or time spent at other beneficiaries or associated partners within the project, be it for short stays or secondments’. The REA specified that ‘this [was] on the condition that, as required by the ITN grant agreement, the fellows spent at least 3 months at the premises of the University of Antwerp’.

– the REA had confused in its letters the terms ‘hosting’ and ‘seconding’ although they have different meanings;

– the three researchers concerned were never seconded to the OIST within the meaning of the agreements at issue;

– the financial consequences of the REA’s decision were disproportionately high;

– the condition relating to physical presence ‘was only laid up on [it] post factum’;

– the REA had had several opportunities to check compliance with that alleged condition but it never expressed any concerns in that respect.

29 On that basis, the applicant proposed to waive only 10% of the overhead to which it was entitled.

31 By letter of 22 May 2014, the REA restated its position. On the basis of the information provided by the applicant, the REA declared as ineligible (a) in the case of Ms N., 1 074 days (corresponding to her whole recruitment period); (b) in the case of Mr K., 813 days (as against 252 eligible days); and (c) in the case of Mr W., 381 days (as against 710 eligible days), as follows:

32 With regard to Ms N., the REA pointed out in its letter of 22 May 2014 that ‘this fellow did not spend even the minimum recruitment period in Antwerp (i.e. 3 months), even when vacation days are added to the period spent in Antwerp’ and that ‘[it] therefore consider[ed] that no costs relating to her recruitment [could] be accepted since she was never genuinely hosted by [the University of Antwerp]’.

33 By letter of 25 June 2014, the applicant restated its position, disputing the REA’s arguments one by one. In support of its interpretation, the applicant referred, inter alia, to Article II.1.10, Article III.2.2(c) and (g) and Article III.4 of the agreements at issue, and to Articles 2.2.4, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the Guide for Applicants.

34 In that same letter, the applicant also recalled that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1, ‘the Financial Regulation’), the REA must observe the principle of proportionality.

35 By email of 3 July 2014 addressed to the coordinator of the C7 project, the REA stated that the ineligible costs for Mr W. concerned 395 days (instead of 381 days), namely EUR 65 546.52.

36 By letter of 3 September 2014, the REA replied in detail to all of the observations and arguments raised by the applicant in its letter of 25 June 2014, and stated that it ‘[had] rejected the costs for the whole monthly living and mobility allowances paid to the researchers while being at OIST in Japan, because those costs ha[d] been claimed in breach of the eligibility rules provided for in the grant agreement, namely on the hosting of researchers at the premises of a beneficiary’. The REA stated, inter alia, that Article III.2.2(i) of the agreements at issue, concerning secondment, ‘[was] not applicable as secondment from [the applicant] to OIST never took place’.

37 By letter of 16 October 2014, the applicant reiterated its disagreement with the REA’s analysis and asked for a copy of the debit note which the REA intended to issue.

38 By letter of 10 November 2014, the REA informed the applicant that financial analysis for the C7 project had been completed, whereas it was still ongoing for the Cerebnet project. It also confirmed that, in both cases, it would proceed to final payment ‘by rejecting what [it considered] to be the ineligible costs claimed for the periods spent in Japan for the [three] fellows concerned’. With regard to the C7 project, the REA indicated that it would issue a debit note directly to the applicant once the coordinator was able to demonstrate the applicant’s refusal to pay the outstanding amount.

39 On 28 January 2015, the REA sent a letter to the coordinator of the C7 project, seeking to remind the applicant of its obligation to return part of the prefinancing to an account designated by the coordinator within 15 calendar days of the date of receipt of the letter. The REA stated that it would initiate proceedings to recover the funds unduly paid to the applicant if it failed to meet that requirement.

40 On 11 February 2015, ‘in order to preserve its good relationship with the other members of the consortium and to allow them to receive their part of the funding’, the applicant transferred EUR 24 245.60 to the project coordinator’s account, corresponding to the part of the prefinancing which it had received in the context of the C7 agreement and which had been declared ineligible by the REA.

41 By letter of 4 March 2015, the applicant informed the REA of its intention to lodge an application for interpretation before the Court. It also asked the REA to suspend the adoption of any acts that could affect its interests pending proceedings before the Court.

42 By letter of 24 March 2015, the REA stated that it took note of the applicant’s intention to lodge an application for interpretation before the Court, and pointed out that, in accordance with Article 278 TFEU, such an action did not have suspensory effect. It also confirmed to the applicant that, with regard to the Cerebnet project, final payment would be made to the project coordinator ‘on the basis of the position [it took] in [their] previous correspondence’.

43 The REA’s compliance review of the implementation of the Cerebnet project led to a debit note being issued to the project coordinator on 22 April 2016.

44 Pursuant to that debit note, the applicant, ‘in order to preserve its good relationship with the other members of the consortium’, paid the sum of EUR 309 173.81 to the coordinator of the Cerebnet project, corresponding to the part of the financing it had already received in the context of that project.

45 The applicant’s costs that the REA declared ineligible amounted to EUR 65 546.52 (Mr W.’s 395-day stay in Japan), for the C7 project, and to EUR 333 936, for the Cerebnet project, corresponding to the total of EUR 142 936.97 (Mr K.’s 813-day stay in Japan) plus EUR 190 999.03 (total costs related to Ms N.’s 1 074-day training).

46 The costs related to Ms N.’s training that the REA declared ineligible amounted to EUR 120 930.45 for the 680 days she spent in Japan, EUR 10 136.80 for the 57 days she spent in Antwerp, EUR 31 833.15 for the 179 days she spent with other members of the Cerebnet consortium, EUR 24 541.85 for the 138 days she spent outside the consortium (excluding Japan) and EUR 3 556.78 for the 20 days she reported as leave.

47 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 24 April 2015, the applicant brought the present action.

48 On a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Seventh Chamber) decided to open the oral part of the procedure and, by way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of its Rules of Procedure, put a number of written questions to the parties. The parties replied within the prescribed period.

49 The parties presented oral argument and replied to the Court’s written and oral questions at the hearing on 19 July 2016.

– declare that the agreements at issue cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the beneficiaries to provide training to early-stage researchers exclusively on their own premises and, as a consequence, confirm that the REA cannot reject as ineligible part of the costs related to the training of the early-stage researchers on the basis of this interpretation;

– order the REA to pay the costs related to the training of the three researchers concerned, as reported by the applicant in the context of the agreements at issue, together with interest from the date on which the payments were due under the agreements;

52 Under Article 272 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 256 TFEU, the Court has jurisdiction to give judgment, at first instance, pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by or on behalf of the European Union, whether that contract is governed by public or private law.

53 It must also be borne in mind that, where proceedings have been instituted pursuant to an arbitration clause under Article 272 TFEU, the Court must resolve the dispute on the basis of the substantive rules of the law applicable to the contract (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 June 2012, Insula v Commission, T‑110/10, not published, EU:T:2012:289, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).

54 In the present case, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 9 of the main contract of the agreements at issue, the Court has jurisdiction to hear any dispute between the European Union and any beneficiary concerning the interpretation, application or validity of the agreements.

55 It is apparent, in essence, from the first paragraph of Article 9 of the main contract of the agreements at issue that the latter are governed by the terms of those agreements, the EU acts related to the Seventh Framework Programme, the Financial Regulation and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1) and, on a subsidiary basis, by Belgian law.

56 The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its action. The first plea alleges misinterpretation of the agreements at issue by the REA. The second plea alleges breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality.

57 The applicant’s first plea is divided into three parts. The first part concerns the imposition of the requirement to be present on its premises, which, according to the applicant, is contrary to the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme, the People Specific Programme, the 2008 People Work Programme and the European Charter for Researchers. In the second part, the applicant claims that it can be inferred from the agreements at issue that training could be provided outside its premises. Under the third part, the applicant submits that no provision in the agreements states that training had to be provided exclusively on the applicant’s premises.

58 The Court will start by assessing the first and third parts and it will then examine the second part of this plea.

– The first part of the first plea, relating to the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme, the People Specific Programme, the 2008 People Work Programme and the European Charter for Researchers

59 The applicant claims that the core objective of the ‘People’ action under the Seventh Framework Programme, as defined in the People Specific Programme and in the 2008 People Work Programme, is to improve the career perspectives of European researchers. According to the applicant, that action focuses on people rather than on technical or structural issues. The Seventh Framework Programme also highlights the crucial importance of transnational mobility for researchers. The same is also true for the European Charter for Researchers. Rejecting costs related to researchers’ participation on the sole ground that training did not take place exclusively on the applicant’s premises (in Belgium) is contrary to all of those objectives. Moreover, the REA’s interpretation leads to absurd and counterproductive situations. Thus, for example, it would prevent researchers from being trained in the more modern laboratories of a neighbouring university. In addition, such a geographical restriction cannot be imposed on beneficiaries in the absence, in the agreements at issue, of clear and express clauses to that effect.

60 In its reply, the applicant states that the European added value of the project must not be assessed exclusively on the basis of a geographical criterion. In the present case, the applicant makes clear that the research programme was led by a European university which provided high-level training to European researchers and which made sure that their activities were fully integrated in the C7 and the Cerebnet consortia.

62 First, it must be noted, as the REA did, that, while the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme and of the People Specific Programme did focus on people, they also emphasised the European dimension of the activities.

– ‘the overriding aim [thereof] is to contribute to the Union becoming the world’s leading research area’ (recital 4 of the Seventh Framework Programme) and those objectives include the strengthening, both quantitatively and qualitatively, of ‘human potential in research and technology in Europe’ (recital 8, third indent, of the Seventh Framework Programme);

– ‘early-stage researchers can be a driving force of science in Europe’ (recital 10 of the Seventh Framework Programme);

– ‘under the “People” programme, individuals should be stimulated to enter into the profession of researcher, European researchers should be encouraged to stay in Europe, researchers from the entire world should be attracted to Europe and Europe should be made more attractive to the best researchers[;] building on the positive experiences with the “Marie Curie Actions” under previous Framework Programmes, the “People” programme should encourage individuals to enter the profession of researcher; structure the research training offer and options; encourage European researchers to stay in, or return to, Europe; encourage intersectoral mobility, and attract researchers from all over the world to Europe[;] the mobility of researchers is key not only to the career development of researchers but also to the sharing and transfer of knowledge between countries and sectors and to ensuring that innovative frontier research in various disciplines benefits from dedicated and competent researchers, as well as increased financial resources’ (recital 16 of the Seventh Framework Programme);

– ‘building on the experiences with the “Marie Curie” actions under previous Framework Programmes, this will be done by putting into place a coherent set of “Marie Curie” actions, particularly taking into account the European added value in terms of their impact on the European Research Area’ (paragraph III of Annex I to the Seventh Framework Programme, relating to the ‘People’ category);

– ‘mobility, both transnational and intersectoral, including the stimulation of industrial participation and the opening of research careers and academic positions at European scale, is a key component of the European Research Area and indispensable to increasing European capacities and performance in research’ (paragraph III of Annex I to the Seventh Framework Programme, relating to the ‘People’ category);

– ‘this will be implemented through Marie Curie Networks with the main objective being to overcome fragmentation of and to strengthen at European level the initial training and career development of researchers[;] support is foreseen for the best early-stage researchers to join established research teams[;] members of the transnational networks must exploit their complementary competencies through integrated training programmes’ (paragraph III of Annex I to the Seventh Framework Programme, relating to the ‘People’ category).

– ‘the activities supporting training and career development of researchers, referred to as “Marie Curie Actions”, shall focus on the key aspects of skills and career development and strengthened links with national systems’ (paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the People Specific Programme);

– ‘as a prerequisite for increasing Europe’s capacity and performance in research and technological development and for consolidating and further developing the European Research Area, the overall strategic aim of this programme is to make Europe more attractive to researchers’ (Annex I to the People Specific Programme).

65 It can be inferred from those principles that the actions of the Seventh Framework Programme, including those falling under the ‘People’ category, aimed at strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area in order to contribute, ultimately, to the Member States’ social, cultural and economic progress. Their objective was also to attract young international researchers to Europe, to encourage European researchers to stay in the European Union and to promote exchanges between them. The geographical dimension of the grant actions was thus clearly of significance.

66 Second, as the REA notes, the structures and research environments offered by the beneficiaries of the agreements at issue — the ITN members — were taken into account in the evaluation of the projects. In fact, it is apparent from the evaluation criteria defined in the 2008 People Work Programme and in the Guide for Applicants that the requirements in place for supporting training quality included the criterion relating to the ‘implementation’ of the projects, which was to be assessed, inter alia, according to (i) the participants’ capacity to carry out the research (such as expertise, human resources, facilities, infrastructure), (ii) a timetable and adequate task distribution, and (iii) the adequate exploitation of the complementarity of and synergies among partners in term of research and training. Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, the ‘implementation’ criterion was not marginal but represented 20% of the total number of points in the project evaluation scale. Selection of the ITN participants would be meaningless if, as the applicant submits, every one of them was able to move the services they had to provide to researchers to the laboratories of other universities or other institutions.

67 Third, with regard to the importance of transnational mobility for researchers, put forward by the applicant, it must be noted that mobility was ensured within the ITN established in the context of the C7 and the Cerebnet projects. The ‘Marie Curie’ actions translated into support activities for transnational networks, normally consisting of several bodies (universities, research centres, companies) from different countries, selected on a competitive basis. Those networks relied on joint training programmes for researchers, inter alia, when envisaging secondments within the ITNs.

68 Fourth, the applicant is wrong in asserting that the costs at issue were rejected on the sole ground that training failed to take place exclusively on its premises. The REA did not object to the possibility for researchers of staying outside the applicant’s premises, in so far as training was provided in the context of a secondment to another beneficiary of the agreements at issue.

69 Fifth, contrary to the applicant’s suggestion, the REA did not ignore the European dimension of the training of the three researchers at issue, since the costs related to their training in Antwerp and with other beneficiaries of the C7 and the Cerebnet projects were considered to be eligible provided that they had stayed at least three months in Antwerp.

70 Lastly, the applicant’s argument that there are no ‘clear and explicit clauses’ on the concept of hosting in the agreements at issue cannot succeed either. The fact that the agreements do not expressly define the concept of hosting does not mean that their objective is to facilitate researchers’ international mobility outside the networks approved by the REA, which, in the present case, are located in Europe and Israel.

71 Accordingly, the Court must reject the applicant’s argument that the requirement to be present on the premises of the beneficiaries of the agreements at issue is contrary to the objectives pursued by the Seventh Framework Programme and by the supporting documents and, consequently, the first part of the first plea must also be rejected.

– The third part of the first plea, alleging that neither the agreements at issue nor the other instruments indicate that training has to be provided exclusively on the applicant’s premises

72 In the first place, the applicant submits that, in view of the general context and the other provisions of the agreements at issue, the term ‘hosting’ should be interpreted in its commonly accepted sense, namely that of assuming all obligations with regard to recruitment, administrative assistance, training, authority and supervision of early-stage researchers, as a ‘host’ should do, rather than that of providing initial training in a specific geographical location. According to that interpretation, the three researchers concerned were hosted by the applicant and not by the OIST, contrary to the REA’s assertions in its letter of 18 November 2013.

73 In the second place, the applicant alleges that, in its letter of 5 February 2014, the REA revised its position with regard to the concept of hosting and implicitly agreed with its interpretation. In that letter, the REA acknowledged that the researchers were enrolled by the applicant and received adequate training and supervision, while stating that the ‘secondment’ to the OIST was irregular. According to the applicant, the rules on secondment laid down in the agreements at issue did not apply to the OIST because the applicant continuously exercised its supervisory powers, regardless of the premises on which the training was provided, as the REA admitted in its letter of 3 September 2014.

74 In the third place, the applicant asserts that Article III.2.2(g) and (h) of the agreements at issue, invoked by the REA in its letter of 22 May 2014, contains no specific obligation with regard to the geographical location of the initial training activities.

75 In the fourth place, the applicant claims that, contrary to the REA’s contention in its letters, Article III.8.1(b) of the agreements at issue cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on beneficiaries to provide training exclusively on their premises. In fact, the provision merely stipulates that the allowances paid to the early-stage researchers should be calculated by taking into account the cost of living in the country where the researcher is being trained. In its reply, the applicant notes that neither the agreements at issue nor the 2008 People Work Programme impose any obligation on beneficiaries to request additional funding for a secondment to a country with a higher standard of living.

76 In the fifth and last place, the applicant observes in its reply that core hosting obligations are carrying out the work in accordance with Annex I to the agreements at issue (Article II.3(a) of the agreements) and ensuring that each researcher is trained under the project for the time specified in the agreement (Article III.2.2(j) of the agreements). According to the applicant, the REA does not deny that those obligations were met in the present case.

78 In that respect, it must be noted that, under Article III.2.2(b) of the agreements at issue, ‘each beneficiary shall ... host the researcher for the period(s) specified in the agreement’.

79 It is common ground between the parties that the agreements at issue and the supporting documents contain no express definition of the concept of hosting. However, they have different views on how that concept should be interpreted. According to the applicant, the concept of hosting has a purely administrative meaning essentially referring to the obligation to enrol and to the supervision of researchers. By contrast, the REA considers that the concept of hosting has also a geographical dimension specifically referring to the applicant’s premises in Antwerp. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the REA never concurred with its interpretation of the concept of hosting. In its letter of 5 February 2014, the REA in fact merely acknowledged that the fellows were enrolled by the applicant as doctoral students and that they received adequate training and supervision.

80 The dispute between the parties therefore concerns the interpretation of the concept of hosting as it appears in the agreements at issue. With regard to this interpretation, reference must be made to the background and to the provisions of those agreements as implemented by the parties.

81 In the first place, with regard to background, it must be recalled that the overall strategic aim of the People Specific Programme of the Seventh Framework Programme was to make Europe more attractive to researchers and that the ‘Marie Curie’ actions at issue emphasised not only career development for researchers, but also the complementarity — in terms of infrastructure and training capacity — of ITN members, and the strengthening of links with national systems. Under those circumstances, the concept of hosting in Article III.2.2(b) of the agreements cannot be given a meaning that is purely administrative. It must be interpreted also in practical and geographical terms.

82 In the second place, with regard to the provisions of the agreements at issue, as interpreted in the light of the acts of the European Union relating to the Seventh Framework Programme that are applicable to those agreements (see paragraph 55 above), first, it must be noted that the agreements lay down very precise conditions for possible secondments.

83 Article III.1.11 of the agreements at issue thus specifies that ‘secondment period means a period spent by a researcher at a beneficiary’s premises other than those of the beneficiary which has appointed him/her under the project’ and that ‘secondment periods at the premises of institution[s] other than the beneficiaries may be allowed in duly justified cases and according to the conditions laid down under Annex I’.

84 It is also apparent from the Guide for Applicants, which applies to the agreements at issue, that ‘recruited researchers can be seconded to other partner institutions within the network and/or to associated partners for a duration of up to 30% of their recruitment period’ and that ‘if the secondment period exceeds this maximum, the receiving network partner will have to appoint the researcher instead’ and, finally, that ‘in a multi-site ITN secondments cannot take place [in] an organisation outside the network’.

85 It follows from those provisions that researchers should, as a rule, stay on the beneficiary’s premises, except when they are seconded to another ITN member.

86 In that regard, it is irrelevant that, as the applicant notes, the three researchers at issue were not ‘seconded’ to the OIST within the meaning of the agreements at issue, as the OIST did not assume any responsibility towards them. When it stated in its letters that the conditions for secondment were strict and that they were not satisfied in the present case, the REA sought above all to recall the rule that it was only in the case of secondments that the possibility of staying outside the applicant’s premises had been envisaged.

87 Secondly, reference must be made to other provisions with a geographical dimension referring to the location of the beneficiary’s country, which confirms that the beneficiary’s hosting is not merely administrative but also geographical in scope.

88 In fact, it follows from the 2008 People Work Programme, which is applicable to the agreements at issue, that the researchers recruited by the beneficiaries must be nationals of a country other than that of the host organisation where they will carry out their research project.

89 Similarly, Article III.8.1(b) of the agreements at issue provides for a correction coefficient depending on the ‘cost of living and the national salary structure in the country/ies where the researcher is devoting him/herself to the initial training activities’. Contrary to the applicant’s claims, that provision confirms the need for the researchers to be hosted geographically on its premises.

90 Moreover, pursuant to Article III.2.2(h) of the agreements at issue, the beneficiary must ‘provide reasonable assistance to the researchers in all administrative procedures required by the relevant authorities of the country of the beneficiary recruiting him/her as well as in all administrative procedures, such as visas or work permits required by the relevant authorities of the country of the beneficiary where the researcher may carry out a secondment period’. That last provision, invoked by the applicant, shows that researchers could stay either in the country of the host university or in another country, only if on secondment.

91 Thirdly, as the applicant recalls, Article III.2.2(g) of the agreements at issue did indeed require each beneficiary to ‘provide ... the means, including the infrastructure, equipment and products, for implementing the project in the scientific and technical fields concerned and to make these means available to the researchers, as necessary’. However, since the REA, in the evaluation of the projects, took account of the means made available by the beneficiaries to the researchers (see paragraph 66 above), the requirement in Article III.2.2(g) refers to the beneficiaries’ premises, contrary to the applicant’s assertions.

92 In the third and last place, with regard to the provisions on the implementation of the agreements at issue, it must be noted, as the REA did, that in the contracts concluded with Messrs W. and K. the applicant defined itself as ‘host institution’. Article 2.1 of those contracts stipulates that ‘the research activities will take place in the Host Institution, within the Department of Biomedical Sciences’.

93 It follows that the duty to host in Article III.2.2(b) of the agreements at issue must be interpreted as requiring the applicant to provide training to the researchers on its own premises.

94 That finding is not invalidated by the fact, put forward by the applicant, that the duty to host imposes other obligations also, such as that of carrying out the research work in accordance with Annex I to the agreements at issue. Indeed, the achievement of the scientific and training goals defined in that annex does not preclude the Court from finding that the stay in Japan of the three researchers at issue was contrary to the obligation to be hosted on the applicant’s premises.

– The second part, alleging the possibility of providing training outside the applicant’s premises, as resulting from the agreements at issue and the Guide for Applicants

96 According to the applicant, it follows from reading Article III.2.2(c), (d) and (g), Article II.14.2 and Article III.4.1(m) of the agreements at issue, and from Articles 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the Guide for Applicants, that those provisions gave it the possibility of providing training outside its premises in Antwerp.

98 In order to assess the relevance of its arguments, the Court must examine whether the provisions pleaded by the applicant entitled it to derogate from the requirement to provide the training on its premises, as established in paragraph 93.

99 Article III.2.2(c) of the agreements at issue requires each beneficiary to ensure that the researcher is covered under the applicable social security legislation and, where the researcher carries out the initial training activities in a non-EU Member State, to ensure that the researcher is covered under a social security scheme providing protection at least equivalent to those of local researchers holding a similar position.

100 Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, that provision did not permit training to be provided anywhere, be it within or outside the European Union. By contrast, it refers to the social protection applicable in countries in which the other members of the C7 and the Cerebnet consortia were located, namely, in the present case, inter alia, the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (Israel), for the C7 project, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel), for the Cerebnet project.

101 With regard to Article III.2.2(d) of the agreements at issue, it must be noted that that provision requires the beneficiaries to ensure that the researcher enjoys, at any place of implementation of the project, the same standards of occupational health and safety as those awarded to local researchers holding a similar position.

102 This is thus a general reference to the health and safety standards to be observed and not, as stated by the applicant, a provision that is of relevance to assess whether or not it was entitled to provide training outside its premises in Antwerp.

103 With regard to Article III.2.2(g) of the agreements at issue, the wording of which is set out in paragraph 91 above, the applicant submits that it imposed a dynamic obligation on the beneficiary to adapt its means ‘as necessary’ to the researchers’ training needs, and that, pursuant to that provision, the three researchers were therefore entitled to stay at the OIST under the supervision of Professor S.

104 That argument cannot succeed because, as indicated in paragraph 91 above, the requirement set out in Article III.2.2(g) of the agreements at issue relates only to the practical means to be provided by the beneficiaries to their researchers on their premises (infrastructure, equipment and products).

105 Article II.14.2 of the agreements at issue allows the beneficiaries to claim, under specific conditions, the costs incurred by third parties in relation to the resources they make available to a beneficiary free of charge. The applicant infers from that provision that it could have included the costs incurred by the OIST in the calculation of eligible costs, which, it claims, confirms that it was possible for training to be provided outside its premises in Antwerp.

106 In that regard, it must be noted, as the REA did, that the conditions for Article II.14.2 of the agreements at issue to apply are defined in the Guide to Financial Issues relating to the Seventh Framework Programme Indirect Actions (see paragraph 6 above). Those conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Beneficiaries should have had the necessary resources themselves or, where third parties made resources available to them, they should have been under the beneficiaries’ control. The fact that the OIST made its laboratories available to Professor S. does not necessarily mean that those laboratories were under the applicant’s control or that they could be regarded as its own. In addition, the applicant never informed the REA that it intended to seek assistance from a third party, contrary to the requirements of the Guide to Financial Issues.

107 With regard to Article III.4.1(m) of the agreements at issue, the applicant maintains that the requirement to specify the location selected for the initial training activities set out therein entitled it choose the location where those activities were to take place.

108 That argument must be rejected. Indeed, Article III.4.1(m) of the agreements at issue concerns the secondments under those agreements and cannot be interpreted as conferring upon beneficiaries freedom to select training locations.

109 Articles 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the Guide for Applicants state, respectively, that other training activities may be envisaged, such as the ‘organisation of courses to provide complementary training both within and outside the network’, and that ‘networks will establish and/or strengthen the collaboration between the teams, as well as between itself and its wider scientific community’. According to the applicant, even though those provisions refer to complementary training courses, they open the programme, in the interest of the training of early-stage researchers, to institutions outside the network, and they underline the importance of mobility within and outside Europe.

110 The REA rightly contends that complementary training does not replace initial training activities on the beneficiary’s premises. It is common ground between the parties that the three researchers at issue did not merely attend complementary training in Japan, within the meaning of Article 2.4.1 of the Guide for Applicants, but that they spent a large part of their recruitment period on the premises of the OIST. The activities referred to in Article 2.4.2 of the Guide for Applicants do not refer to a scientific stay such as that of the three researchers at the OIST. The Guide for Applicants is directed at other types of activities, such as attendance at international conferences, the invitation of external experts, visits and secondments among ITN participants or the organisation of workshops, seminars and summer schools.

111 Under those circumstances, the second part of the applicant’s first plea must be rejected as unfounded and, accordingly, the first plea must be rejected in its entirety.

The second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality

112 The applicant’s second plea is divided into two parts. The first part alleges the REA’s breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations. The second part alleges breach of the principle of proportionality.

– The first part of the second plea, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations

113 The applicant claims that, having regard to the wording of the agreements at issue and to the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme and of the People Specific Programme, a diligent beneficiary could have legitimately expected that, by ensuring part of the training of the early-stage researchers under its supervision outside its premises but in an international environment, it was duly fulfilling its contractual obligations. Moreover, according to the applicant, by interpreting the ambiguous contractual terms in a manner that is disadvantageous to the beneficiary, the REA infringes the principle of legal certainty.

114 The applicant adds in its reply that the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, as a corollary to the principle of legal certainty, does not require that the assurances given by authorised and reliable sources be individualised. The adoption of general documents, such as codes of conduct, can also generate legitimate expectations in so far as their publication indicates a practice that an institution will follow. The applicant was thus entitled to base its legitimate expectations on the regulatory framework applicable to the agreements at issue. The applicant also states that its central administration does not have full knowledge of the practical development of the large number of projects in which its departments and faculties are involved.

116 Irrespective of whether this part is inadmissible or ineffective (see, by analogy, judgment of 3 June 2009, Commission v Burie Onderzoek en Advies, T‑179/06, EU:T:2009:171, paragraphs 116 to 118), it must be held that, in any event, first, the interpretation of the concept of being hosted by the applicant cannot be inferred either from the agreements at issue or from any document relating to the Seventh Framework Programme. It is apparent from the agreements, when read in the light of the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme and of the ‘Marie Curie’ actions at issue, that the training activities of the three researchers at issue had to take place on the applicant’s premises or those of other bodies in the context of a secondment in line with the agreements at issue, as has been established in the analysis of the applicant’s first plea. The concept of hosting thus cannot be regarded as ambiguous, as claimed by the applicant.

117 Secondly, the REA and the Commission provided no ‘precise, unconditional and consistent’ information regarding the meaning of the word ‘hosting’. The same applies with regard to the specific situation of the three researchers at issue in Japan. The REA was indeed never notified of the situation either before or during the implementation of the C7 and the Cerebnet projects.

118 Lastly, if the applicant was of the opinion that the concept of hosting within the meaning of the agreements at issue was ambiguous, it should have made enquiries beforehand with the REA as to whether it was possible to send the researchers to Japan instead of presenting it ex post with a fait accompli.

119 It follows that the applicant’s arguments on the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations and, consequently, the first part of the second plea must be rejected.

– The second part of the second plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

120 The applicant recalls essentially that, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 103 of the Financial Regulation and to Article 87 of Regulation No 2342/2002, the principle of proportionality should apply. It takes the view that the REA infringed that principle by rejecting all costs and by not taking account of the fact that the four researchers were duly trained, that they were able to participate in the activities of the ITNs at issue and that the stay in Japan of three of them had not been funded at the expense of the EU budget since no claim had been made for the expenses related to their stay. The applicant notes that it acted in good faith by providing a maximum of opportunities to the researchers and that it has committed itself for the future. Lastly, it points out that the dispute with the REA caused damage to its reputation within the training network.

121 First, the REA contends that its position does not infringe the principle of proportionality. All costs related to the stay at the OIST of the three researchers at issue were rejected as a consequence of the applicant’s non-compliance with its obligation to host the researchers on its premises. The fact that the objectives of the ‘People’ programme and of the agreements at issue were achieved does not mean that it is possible to derogate from that obligation.

122 Secondly, the REA recalls that the provisions of EU law which confer entitlement to financial benefits must be interpreted strictly. The fact that non-compliance with those provisions allegedly did not affect the financial interests of the European Union does not justify their infringement. The REA claims that, in the present case, the applicant failed to fulfil its obligations under Article II.3 and Article III.2 of the agreements at issue.

123 Lastly, the REA submits that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith. Whilst the applicant at first expressed its surprise at the fact that the three researchers had stayed in Japan, it subsequently changed its approach by arguing against the decision to reject costs for the days concerned by those stays.

124 With regard to the alleged failure to observe the principle of proportionality, it must be recalled that this general principle of EU law, laid down in Article 5(4) TEU, requires that the measures adopted by EU institutions do not exceed what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued. That principle is intended to regulate all the means of action of the European Union, whether contractual or non-contractual (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 December 2013, EMA v Commission, T‑116/11, EU:T:2013:634, paragraph 259 and the case-law cited).

125 In the present case, it follows from the analysis of the first plea that the fact that the three researchers at issue had stayed in Japan was in breach of the agreements at issue, of the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme and of the ‘Marie Curie’ actions for providing support to early-stage researchers. In addition, the REA and the Commission were never informed of the stay. Under those circumstances, the REA’s decision to declare ineligible the costs related to the monthly living and mobility allowances paid for the days the researchers spent in Japan does not infringe the principle of proportionality.

126 The arguments put forward by the applicant do not affect that finding. The absence of additional expense to the EU budget, its alleged good faith and the reputational damage due to the dispute with the REA do not alter the fact that there was a breach of contractual commitments. The applicant received the financing provided for in the agreements at issue by accepting the conditions imposed by them. To the extent that those conditions exclude funding for training outside the circumstances envisaged in those agreements, the REA was entitled to reduce financing in respect of the amounts that are ineligible, that is to say the allowances corresponding to the days spent in Japan, namely 813 days for Mr K., 680 days for Ms N. and 395 days for Mr W.

127 However, it must be noted that, with regard to Ms N., the REA did not simply reduce the allowances for the 680 days spent in Japan; it also declared ineligible all the costs relating to that researcher, including the costs related to her stay on the applicant’s premises (57 days) and with other beneficiaries of the Cerebnet project (179 days), as well as the costs corresponding to the days she reported as leave (20 days) (see paragraph 31 above).

128 The REA claims that, according to the letter of 22 May 2014, the exclusion of all costs is justified by the fact that Ms N. did not even spend the minimum three-month recruitment period in Antwerp (see paragraph 32 above).

129 In its reply to the Court’s written question, which was clarified at the hearing, the REA explained that the requirement to spend at least three months in Antwerp arises under Article III.3.3(a) of the Cerebnet agreement. In addition, the REA made clear that researchers could not be seconded for longer than 30% of the total recruitment period, which means that they had to spend at least 70% of their time on the beneficiary’s premises. Yet, Ms N. had spent less than 6% of her time in Antwerp.

130 With regard to the first argument put forward by the REA, based on Article III.3.3(a) of the Cerebnet agreement, it should be recalled that that provision states that ‘the early-stage researcher can be involved under the project to benefit from the initial training activities for [a] duration of at least 3 months up to a maximum of 36 months (full-time equivalent)’.

131 As the applicant pointed out at the hearing, Article III.3.3(a) imposes a minimum and a maximum duration with regard to the researchers’ training ‘under the project’. For early-stage researchers, that article therefore merely stipulates the requirement to have a minimum period of initial training of three months and it does not specify who, among the members of the consortium, should provide that minimum initial training.

132 In the present case, the REA does not dispute the fact that Ms N. was given initial training by the beneficiaries of the Cerebnet consortium for at least three months. In fact, she spent 57 days in Antwerp with the applicant and 179 days with other members of the Cerebnet consortium (see paragraph 31 above).

133 With regard to the second argument raised by the REA, based on the 30% upper limit for secondments, which implies, according to the REA, a requirement to spend at least 70% of the time in Antwerp, it must be noted that, while the rule invoked by the REA refers to a 30% upper limit for secondments, it does not state precisely the percentage of time for ‘minimum recruitment’ that researchers must spend with the host organisation for the purpose of the letter of 22 May 2014. Thus, even if a researcher did spend 30% of his or her time on secondment, that does not mean that the remaining 70% of his or her recruitment period must necessarily be spent with the host organisation, given, inter alia, the possibility of carrying out complementary activities (see paragraphs 109 and 110 above) or of taking leave. Furthermore, the REA’s argument is inconsistent with its conclusions regarding Messrs K. and W. for whom, while they failed to spend at least 70% of their time in Antwerp, the REA regarded the costs corresponding to the days they spent in Antwerp, the days they spent with other institutions within the Cerebnet consortium and the days they took as leave as eligible. Lastly, it must be observed that, in the present case, the REA does not dispute that Ms N.’s stay with other members of the Cerebnet consortium (179 days) still falls short of the 30% upper limit for secondments.

134 Under those circumstances, the REA’s second argument also fails to justify the ineligibility of all training costs for Ms N., when part of that training was provided by the applicant on its premises and by other members of the Cerebnet consortium in accordance with the agreements at issue and, more generally, with the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme and the People Specific Programme.

135 It must therefore be held that, by declaring that all costs incurred for Ms N. are ineligible, the REA exceeded what was appropriate and necessary to offset in financial terms the applicant’s infringements of the contractual obligations regarding Ms N.’s stay in Japan and that, in so doing, it failed to observe the principle of proportionality.

136 Accordingly, the second part of the second plea must be upheld, in so far as it concerns the declaration of ineligibility of the costs related to Ms N.’s stay in Antwerp (EUR 10 136.80) and with other members of the Cerebnet consortium (EUR 31 833.15). With regard to the costs related to the days Ms N. reported as leave (EUR 3 556.78), it must be noted that the REA considered that the days Messrs K. and W. reported as leave were eligible, despite their stay in Japan. Under those circumstances, the costs related to Ms N.’s leave must also be considered to be eligible.

137 In the light of the above, the applicant’s third head of claim must be partially granted by ordering the REA to pay the costs incurred in training Ms N. during her stay in Antwerp and with other members of the Cerebnet consortium and the costs related to the days she reported as leave, amounting to EUR 45 526.73, together with contractual interest from the date on which those amounts were due under the Cerebnet agreement, taking account, in particular, of the prefinancing and interim payments provided for in that agreement.

139 Under Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads, the parties are to bear their own costs. Since the applicant has failed on its second head of claim and the REA has partially failed on its first head of claim, the Court orders that each party shall bear its own costs.

1. Orders the Research Executive Agency (REA) to pay Universiteit Antwerpen the sum of EUR 45 526.73, corresponding to payment of some of the eligible costs under the ‘Cerebnet’ Agreement No 238686 entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), together with contractual interest from the date from which that amount was due under that agreement;

– The third part of the first plea, alleging that neither the agreements at issue nor the other instruments indicate that training has to be provided exclusively on the applicant’s premises

– The second part, alleging the possibility of providing training outside the applicant’s premises, as resulting from the agreements at issue and the Guide for Applicants

The second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality

– The first part of the second plea, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations

– The second part of the second plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Universiteit Antwerpen v REA (Judgment) [2017] EUECJ T-208/15 (01 March 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2017/T20815.html Cite as: EU:T:2017:136, ECLI:EU:T:2017:136, [2017] EUECJ T-208/15

Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)