JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)

19 November 2025 ( * )

( Grant agreement signed as part of the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) – Ultra-secure data storage and long-term preservation of digital and analogue data – Decision to recover part of the grant – Enforceable decision – Article 299 TFEU – Article 110 of the EEA Agreement – Eligible costs – Article 122(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 – Article 23(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 – Concepts of ‘linked third parties’ and ‘affiliated entities’ – Admissibility of evidence )

In Case T‑158/24,

Piql AS, established in Drammen (Norway), represented by L. Garnes and T. Fjeldskaar, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by R. Onozó and T. Van Noyen, acting as Agents,

defendant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed, at the time of the deliberations, of M.J. Costeira, President, U. Öberg (Rapporteur) and E. Tichy-Fisslberger, Judges,

Registrar: H. Eriksson, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 11 June 2025,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Piql AS, seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2024) 414 final of 17 January 2024 relating to the recovery of EUR 245 161.28 plus default interest (‘the contested decision’), in so far as that decision concerns the rental costs for 10 PiqlReaders which the applicant rented from Tronrud Engineering AS.

Background to the dispute

Grant agreement

2 On 16 March 2018, the applicant and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME), which became, with effect from 1 April 2021, the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (Eismea), signed the grant agreement bearing the reference H2020-804477-Piql-GO, H2020-SMEINST‑2-2016-2017 (‘the grant agreement’). That agreement concerned the project entitled ‘Ultra-secure data storage – and long-term preservation of digital and analogue data’ (‘the project’), as described in Annex 1 to the grant agreement.

3 The duration of the project, which was initially set at 24 months from 1 April 2018, was extended to 30 months by an amendment signed on 17 March 2020 and to 36 months by an amendment signed on 23 September 2020. Under Article 5.1 of the grant agreement, the maximum grant amount was EUR 1 993 950, that is to say, 70% of the total estimated cost of the project, which, according to Article 5.2 of the agreement, was EUR 2 848 500.

4 On 29 March 2018, EASME paid a total of EUR 897 277.50 to the applicant, in accordance with Article 21.2 of the grant agreement, which provided for a pre-financing payment of EUR 996 975, intended to act as a float that would remain the property of the European Union until payment of the remainder of the grant, subject to the deduction of a contribution of EUR 99 697.50 corresponding to 5% of the maximum grant amount, retained by EASME and transferred to a guarantee fund.

5 On 26 August 2019, EASME made an interim payment of EUR 797 580, in accordance with Article 21.3 of the grant agreement.

6 On 16 August 2021, the applicant submitted the final version of its final report. On the basis of the assessment provided in that report, the final grant amount was set at EUR 1 920 662.54. On 24 September 2021, Eismea, which had succeeded EASME, paid the applicant the remainder of the grant, that being EUR 126 107.54. On 1 October 2021, Eismea returned to the applicant the contribution made to the guarantee fund of EUR 99 697.50.

Machine rental costs

7 In the course of the project, the applicant signed, on 12 December 2018, a rental contract with Tronrud Engineering providing that the latter would provide it, for a period of 13 months from 1 March 2019 to 31 March 2020, with 10 machines called ‘PiqlReaders’ in return for a monthly rental payment of 30 000 Norwegian kroner (NOK) (approximately EUR 2 913) per machine, corresponding to total rental costs over the whole period of NOK 3 900 000 (approximately EUR 378 670).

8 PiqlReaders enable the reading and writing of data on piqlFilm, a non-hackable, unalterable and permanent storage medium. In accordance with Section 1.3.3. of the amendment to the grant agreement signed on 28 February 2019, the 10 PiqlReaders were rented in order to be placed with 20 to 30 prospective end clients, over a period of 12 months, to allow for appropriate testing and piloting activities.

9 By an amendment to the rental contract signed on 31 March 2020, the term of that contract was extended until 31 March 2021. The amendment stated that the total amount of rent payments envisaged in the rental contract would remain unchanged, but that it would be distributed over a longer period.

10 Tronrud Engineering was the applicant’s largest shareholder throughout the project and, on 31 December 2020, controlled 15.48% of its capital. As a result of a capital reduction and subsequent increases in the applicant’s capital which took place in 2022 and 2023 and in which Tronrud Engineering did not participate, Tronrud Engineering has not held any share of the applicant’s capital since June 2022.

Audit procedure

11 In the course of 2021, the European Court of Auditors carried out a financial audit relating to the implementation of the grant agreement. The audit covered the period from 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2020.

12 On 18 November 2021, Eismea sent the applicant a draft audit report of the Court of Auditors identifying several irregularities, notably in relation to the budgetary categories of personnel costs, travel costs and other direct costs (in particular rental costs) as well as the currency conversion rate. With regard more specifically to the rental costs declared by the applicant for the rental of the PiqlReaders, the Court of Auditors found that those costs were ineligible in part, since they exceeded the depreciation costs of similar equipment. In that regard, the Court of Auditors stated that those irregularities also affected the rental costs declared by the applicant over the implementation period of the project after 30 September 2020.

13 Consequently, in the light of the various adjustments made, the Court of Auditors proposed to reduce the total amount of eligible costs under the grant agreement by EUR 272 700.58.

14 On 25 November 2021, the applicant submitted its observations on the Court of Auditors’ draft audit report, in which it challenged that institution’s assessment of the rental costs for the PiqlReaders.

15 On 14 December 2021, the audit procedure was concluded.

Recovery procedure

16 By letter of 23 March 2022, entitled ‘Pre-information letter’, Eismea informed the applicant that, pursuant to the audit, it intended to recover the sum of EUR 190 890.41. Eismea also invited the applicant to quantify the recurring errors relating to the costs it had declared for the implementation period of the project which had not been audited by the Court of Auditors.

17 In response to the pre-information letter, the applicant submitted its observations on 21 April 2022, in which it disputed Eismea’s assessment. Following further exchanges with Eismea, the applicant confirmed, by email of 5 May 2022, that the other direct costs connected with renting the PiqlReaders during the period from 1 October 2020 to 31 March 2021 had been calculated and declared in the same manner as during the period from 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2020, which had been audited by the Court of Auditors.

18 On 14 July 2022, Eismea sent the applicant a revised pre-information letter. In that letter, Eismea rejected the eligibility of a further amount of EUR 79 882.85 relating to the rental costs for the period from 1 October 2020 to 31 March 2021, bringing the total amount of ineligible costs to EUR 352 583.43. Taking into account the grant rate of 70%, Eismea informed the applicant that it intended to recover a sum of EUR 246 808.39.

19 By letter of 10 August 2022, the applicant submitted its observations in response to the pre-information letter of 14 July 2022.

20 By letter of 7 October 2022, addressed to the applicant, Eismea confirmed the recovery of the sum of EUR 246 808.39. That letter was accompanied by a debit note for the same amount issued on 6 October 2022 by Eismea, giving the applicant a deadline of 21 November 2022 to pay that sum.

21 On 29 November 2022, the European Commission sent the applicant a first payment reminder.

22 By email of 20 December 2022, the applicant asked Eismea to reconsider its position.

23 On 19 January 2023, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the applicant. On the same day, the applicant acknowledged receipt of that formal notice and requested a response to its email of 20 December 2022. By email of 7 February 2023, the Commission confirmed that the claim could not be cancelled.

24 On 22 December 2023, the Commission informed the applicant of its decision to offset the amount owed by the applicant against a payment owed to it in connection with its participation in another grant agreement for project 2020-EU-IA-0228 NEA/CEF/ICT/A2020/2397505, reducing the amount still to be recovered to EUR 245 161.28.

25 On 17 January 2024, the Commission adopted the contested decision, relating to the recovery of the sum of EUR 245 161.28, plus interest owed by the applicant.

Forms of order sought

26 The applicant claims that the Court should:

– annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the rental costs for the 10 PiqlReaders that it rented from Tronrud Engineering;

– order the Commission to pay the costs.

27 The Commission contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

Admissibility of the evidence produced in the course of proceedings

28 On 26 February 2025, the applicant lodged, before the Court, Tronrud Engineering’s annual report for 2019 and a quote from a Swedish company to a Norwegian company for the development of two film scanners, dating from March 2012, as new evidence under Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

29 The Commission regards the evidence thus produced by the applicant as inadmissible under Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

30 It must be borne in mind that, under Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the main parties may, exceptionally, produce or offer further evidence before the oral part of the procedure is closed or before the decision of the Court to rule without an oral part of the procedure, provided that the delay in the submission of such evidence is justified.

31 The applicant did not, either when lodging the evidence referred to in paragraph 28 above or at the hearing, where it was questioned on that subject, provide clear and specific reasons justifying the delay in the submission of those documents as rebuttal evidence to refute the claims of the Commission made for the first time in its rejoinder. In those circumstances, under Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that new evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court in the present case.

Substance

32 In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the grant agreement, in so far as the Commission was incorrect to find that the rental costs for the PiqlReaders exceeded the depreciation costs of similar equipment and that, to that extent, they did not constitute eligible costs within the meaning of that provision.

33 The applicant’s single plea consists of three parts. The first part concerns the incorrect assessment of the depreciation period. The second part concerns the incorrect assessment of the depreciable amount. The third part concerns the incorrect assessment of the rental period of the PiqlReaders.

The first part of the single plea in law, concerning the depreciation period of the PiqlReaders

34 The applicant argues that the Commission should have taken into account a depreciation period of two years, rather than five, for the PiqlReaders.

35 In the first place, the applicant submits that the 10 PiqlReaders it rented from Tronrud Engineering were the beta test versions of second-generation PiqlReaders, which had risks relating to the technical aspects.

36 In the second place, the applicant claims that it is apparent from a statement of 18 March 2024 from Tronrud Engineering that the latter had decided to write off in full, over the 2018 and 2019 financial years, the cost of the 10 PiqlReaders it owned. The applicant asserts that Tronrud Engineering was no longer a shareholder when it drafted that statement.

37 In the third place, the applicant claims that the commercial versions of the first-generation PiqlReaders recorded on its balance sheet, which it wrote off by assuming an economic life of five years, are not appropriate points of comparison for assessing the economic life of the beta test versions of second-generation PiqlReaders. According to the applicant, since the beta test versions of second-generation PiqlReaders were not fully developed commercial machines, but were merely intended to be tested and improved, they were more fragile and more sensitive than the previous first-generation commercial machines. Accordingly, it argues, the beta test versions of the second-generation PiqlReaders had a shorter economic life than the commercial versions justifying their depreciation over a shorter period.

38 In the fourth place, the applicant states that the Norwegian Tax Administration’s guidance on depreciation rates concerns only tax depreciation, which is different from accounting depreciation. Consequently, in its view, it is irrelevant in the present case that those guidelines state that machines can be depreciated over five years, at 20% of their value.

39 The Commission disputes the applicant’s arguments.

40 In that respect, it should be noted that, under Article 317 TFEU, the Commission is obliged to observe the principle of sound financial management. It also ensures the protection of the financial interests of the European Union in the implementation of its budget. This is also a contractual matter, as the grants made by the Commission come from the EU budget. Consequently, the Commission cannot approve expenditure from the EU budget without legal basis; otherwise it will breach the principles established by the FEU Treaty. In the context of a grant, it is the grant agreement that governs the conditions for the allocation and use of that grant and, more particularly, the clauses relating to the determination of the amount of that grant on the basis of the costs declared by the party contracting with the Commission. It follows that, if the costs declared by a beneficiary are not eligible under the relevant grant agreement, the Commission has no choice but to recover an amount of the grant equal to the ineligible amounts, since, pursuant to the legal basis provided by that grant agreement, the Commission can pay out of the EU budget only eligible sums (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 September 2019, BTC v Commission , T‑786/17, not published, EU:T:2019:630, paragraph 98).

41 In the present case, Article 6.1 of the grant agreement sets out the general conditions for costs to be regarded as eligible. In accordance with that provision, for actual costs to be regarded as eligible, they must be actually incurred by the beneficiary during the implementation period of the project and indicated in the estimate budget set out in Annex 2. In addition, they must be incurred in connection with the project as described in Annex 1, be necessary for its implementation, be identifiable and verifiable and, in particular, be recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts in accordance with the accounting standards applicable in the country where the beneficiary is established and with the beneficiary’s usual cost accounting practices. Lastly, they must comply with the applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security, be reasonable and justified and comply with the principle of sound financial management, in particular regarding economy and efficiency.

42 Article 6.2 of the grant agreement, for its part, provides that certain categories of costs, including ‘other direct costs’, are eligible if they satisfy not only the general conditions laid down in Article 6.1 of that agreement, but also certain specific conditions. In accordance with Article 6.2, point D.2, of the grant agreement, the depreciation costs of equipment, infrastructure or other assets (new or second-hand) as recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts are eligible, if they were purchased in accordance with Article 10.1.1 and written off in accordance with international accounting standards and the beneficiary’s usual accounting practices. Article 6.2, point D.2, also provides that the costs of renting or leasing equipment, infrastructure or other assets (including related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible VAT paid by the beneficiary) are also eligible, if they do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment, infrastructure or assets and do not include any financing fees.

43 It is apparent from the applicant’s financial statements that, for the 2018, 2019 and 2020 financial years, it had applied a depreciation period of five years to all of the machines listed in its fixed assets. In those circumstances, the applicant acknowledges that, in addition to the 10 PiqlReaders it rented from Tronrud Engineering in the course of the project, it had other PiqlReaders which, by contrast with the rented PiqlReaders, featured on its balance sheet and were subject to a depreciation period of five years.

44 Moreover, in accordance with the machine depreciation period indicated in its financial statements for the 2018, 2019 and 2020 financial years, the applicant, in the course of the Piql-Film-Go project which was also financed by the European Union, explicitly stated, in its use of resources report, that the depreciation period of the cost of investing in the PiqlReaders was five years.

45 The applicant argues, however, that it is necessary, in the present case, to deviate from that practice and apply a depreciation period of two years for the 10 PiqlReaders it rented from Tronrud Engineering in the course of the project, since they are second-generation PiqlReader prototypes, whereas the PiqlReaders to which it applied a depreciation period of five years are commercial versions of first-generation PiqlReaders.

46 However, the applicant has not shown that the statements concerning the depreciation period of the PiqlReaders, which feature in its financial statements and in the context of the Piql-Film-Go project, relate to a commercial version of PiqlReader and not to a prototype.

47 Furthermore, and in any event, the applicant has not provided any evidence that the prototypes should be written off over a shorter period than the commercial versions. The applicant merely makes unsupported assertions according to which the prototypes have a shorter economic life than the commercial versions. In the absence of evidence, those assertions are not sufficient to show that the prototypes could be written off over a shorter period than the commercial versions.

48 In the light of the foregoing, the applicant has not shown that, in derogation from its usual accounting practices, it was necessary to subject the 10 PiqlReaders it had rented from Tronrud Engineering in the course of the project to a depreciation period different from that applied to the other PiqlReaders.

49 That conclusion is not called into question by the applicant’s argument that Tronrud Engineering decided to write off in full, over the 2018 and 2019 financial years, the cost of the 10 PiqlReaders in question. In support of that argument, the applicant has submitted only a brief statement, signed by an employee of Tronrud Engineering and dated 18 March 2024. Such a statement, which concerns the period during which Tronrud Engineering held part of the applicant’s capital (see paragraph 10 above) and which was obtained by the applicant for the sole purposes of the present dispute, cannot constitute an independent source. Accordingly, the accounting practices that it contains cannot serve as a standard in the present case.

50 Consequently, the first part of the applicant’s single plea in law must be rejected.

The second part of the single plea in law, concerning the depreciable amount for the PiqlReaders

51 The applicant claims that the depreciable amount for the 10 PiqlReaders concerned had to be set at NOK 461 480.16 (approximately EUR 44 807) for each machine, which corresponds to the costs of parts, materials and labour, plus a profit margin of 20% on direct costs.

52 In that regard, the applicant submits that, in order to determine the appropriate depreciation cost, it is necessary to ascertain the acquisition cost of the machine in question or a similar machine on the open market. The cost of parts, materials and labour for each unit amounts to NOK 384 567 (approximately EUR 37 340). Nevertheless, in order to estimate appropriately the cost of a similar machine, an appropriate profit margin for the manufacturer must be included in the calculation. In the present case, Tronrud Engineering stated that the cost of each unit, if bought by the applicant as new, amounts to NOK 465 705 (approximately EUR 45 218), including a profit margin of 20% on direct costs. According to the applicant, the normal range of profit margin is between 25% and 40%. Therefore, a profit margin of 20% should be regarded as lower than a normal profit margin. The applicant adds that, for Tronrud Engineering, simply classifying the machine as a prototype has no impact on the profit margin of its production.

53 According to the applicant, the fact that it declared, in the context of an insurance contract, an insurable value of NOK 400 000 (approximately EUR 38 838) for each of the rented PiqlReaders should not be taken into account when calculating the depreciable amount for those machines, since it determined that necessarily imprecise value on the basis of the cost price of those machines for Tronrud Engineering.

54 In the applicant’s view, the fact that it stated, in a periodic technical report, that the first-generation PiqlReader cost EUR 120 000 and that the better performing ‘new system’ cost EUR 40 000 is also irrelevant. The applicant emphasises, in that regard, that it was referring in that report to the cost price of the commercial version of the first-generation machines and to the possible cost price of a commercial version of the second-generation machines, respectively. According to the applicant, the production of prototypes entails higher costs than that of commercial versions.

55 Furthermore, the applicant disputes the Commission’s argument that Tronrud Engineering’s profit margin cannot be regarded as an eligible cost under the grant agreement on the ground that the applicant and Tronrud Engineering are entities which are linked or affiliated within the meaning of the grant agreement and Article 122(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

56 According to the applicant, in order to be regarded as linked or affiliated, an entity must be able to exercise decisive influence over the other. In support of its arguments, the applicant refers to the concept of ‘undertaking’ in EU competition law and in the rules on State aid, to the definition of ‘small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)’ in Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] (OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1), to the definition of ‘affiliated entities’ in Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’ and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 81) and, lastly, to the annotated model grant agreement for the ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme (2014-2020) (‘the annotated model grant agreement’). Tronrud Engineering’s approximately 15% shareholding in the capital of the applicant at the time the rental contract was signed did not, in its view, give it decisive influence.

57 The applicant adds that the signing of the rental contract with Tronrud Engineering did not breach the rules on conflicts of interest laid down in Article 57(2) of Regulation No 966/2012. In that regard, the applicant submits that Tronrud Engineering was not able to exercise decisive influence over it, that it had no economic interest in Tronrud Engineering and that its only economic interest was to acquire the PiqlReaders in a way that ensured the best value for money or the lowest price.

58 The Commission disputes the applicant’s arguments.

59 As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that the applicant does not dispute that the cost of the parts, material and labour amounts to NOK 384 567 per PiqlReader. The disagreement between the parties thus concerns only the question whether that amount may be increased by a profit margin for the manufacturer, namely Tronrud Engineering, equal to 20% of direct costs.

60 Under Article 10 of the grant agreement, if necessary to implement the action, the beneficiary may purchase goods, works or services. The beneficiary must make such purchases ensuring the best value for money or, if appropriate, the lowest price. In doing so, it must avoid any conflict of interests. If the beneficiary breaches those obligations, the costs related to the contract concerned are ineligible.

61 It follows from Article 5.3.3 of the grant agreement that the grant must not produce a profit. In that context, it also follows from the annotated model grant agreement, in the version of 26 October 2017, which is applicable to the facts of the present case, that when an action task is implemented by a linked third party, the eligible costs are only the costs of that party, no profit being allowed.

62 Furthermore, Article 14 of the annotated model grant agreement, in the version of 26 June 2019, contains a special rule which applies when affiliated entities or linked third parties participate in the implementation of a grant agreement. Those entities or third parties do not invoice prices, but declare the costs involved in the implementation of the action task provided for by the agreement. In the present case, the applicant, which was required, before signing the grant agreement, to inform EASME if part of the project had to be performed by a third party and to request its approval, declared, in the financing proposal, that it did not envisage that part of that project would be performed by a linked third party.

63 In that regard, it must be found that, as stated in the introductory note, the annotated model grant agreement aims to explain the general model grant agreement drafted by the Commission and help users understand and interpret grant agreements drawn up on the basis of that model. Although not binding, that document, which is published and available to all contracting parties, forms part of the context in which the grant agreement was concluded and must, therefore, be taken into account by the Court in interpreting that agreement (judgment of 26 July 2023, Engineering – Ingegneria Informatica v Commission and REA , T‑222/22, EU:T:2023:437, paragraph 65).

64 A rule similar to that laid down in Article 5.3.3 of the grant agreement is set out in the first subparagraph of Article 125(4) of Regulation No 966/2012. Article 126(4) of Regulation No 966/2012 provides inter alia that ‘costs incurred by entities affiliated to a beneficiary as described in Article 122 may be accepted as eligible by the authorising officer responsible under the call for proposals’ and that ‘the entities concerned abide by the rules applicable to the beneficiary under the grant agreement or decision with regard to eligibility of costs’. It follows from that provision that the no-profit rule applies also to entities affiliated to the beneficiary.

65 Article 122(2)(b) of Regulation No 966/2012 defines ‘entities affiliated to the beneficiary’ as ‘entities that satisfy the eligibility criteria and that do not fall within one of the situations referred to in Article 131(4) and that have a link with the beneficiary, in particular a legal or capital link, which is neither limited to the action nor established for the sole purpose of its implementation’.

66 In the present case, as has been stated in paragraph 10 above, Tronrud Engineering was the applicant’s largest shareholder throughout the project and, on 31 December 2020, controlled 15.48% of its capital. Furthermore, as the Commission notes, the founder and owner of Tronrud Engineering was a member of the applicant’s board of directors until 24 July 2018 and the two companies have a long-standing relationship which goes beyond the duration of the project. In that context, the applicant stated that Tronrud Engineering has been its partner since 2002 and that it had participated in the development of the machines at every stage of the process.

67 For the reasons set out in paragraph 66 above, Tronrud Engineering must be regarded as an entity affiliated to the applicant, within the meaning of Article 122(2)(b) of Regulation No 966/2012.

68 As regards the definition of ‘affiliated entities’ in Regulation No 1290/2013, it must be observed that that regulation lays down specific rules for participating in the indirect actions undertaken under the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and is therefore applicable in the present case.

69 Admittedly, as the applicant submits, point 2 of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1290/2013 provides a specific definition of the concept of ‘affiliated entity’ which makes reference to the concept of control. Article 8(2) of that regulation states that control may, in particular, take the form of the direct or indirect holding of more than 50% of the nominal value of the issued share capital or of a majority of the voting rights, or of the direct or indirect holding, in fact or in law, of decision-making powers in the legal entity concerned.

70 However, it is irrelevant, in the present case, that Regulation No 1290/2013 contains a stricter definition of the concept of ‘affiliated entity’ than Regulation No 966/2012. In that regard, it must be held that Article 23(5)(b) of Regulation No 1290/2013 provides that both an ‘affiliated entity’ and a third party which has ‘a legal link to a participant implying a collaboration not limited to the action’ may constitute third parties permitted to implement an action task. Furthermore, it follows from Article 23(5)(d) of that regulation that those third parties are required to comply with the rules applicable to the participant under the grant agreement with regard to eligibility of costs and control of expenditure.

71 In those circumstances, it is apparent from the annotated model grant agreement, which discusses Article 14 of the general model grant agreement drafted by the Commission, that the concept of a ‘linked third party’ in Regulation No 1290/2013 is identical to that of ‘affiliated entities’ in Regulation No 966/2012.

72 For the reasons set out in paragraph 66 above, Tronrud Engineering must be regarded as a linked third party for the purposes of Article 23(5)(b) of Regulation No 1290/2013. Accordingly, Tronrud Engineering was, during the implementation period of the project, both an entity affiliated to the applicant within the meaning of Article 122(2)(b) of Regulation No 966/2012 and a linked third party for the purposes of Article 23(5)(b) of Regulation No 1290/2013.

73 That conclusion is not called into question by the applicant’s arguments.

74 As regards the applicant’s complaint that it follows from the annotated model grant agreement that an entity must be able to exercise decisive influence over the other in order to be regarded as a ‘linked’ or ‘affiliated’ entity under the grant agreement, the extract relied on by the applicant merely reproduces the content of Article 23(5)(b) of Regulation No 1290/2013, which provides that both an ‘affiliated entity’ and a third party which has ‘a legal link to a participant implying a collaboration not limited to the action’ may constitute third parties permitted to implement an action task. As has been stated above, Tronrud Engineering satisfies the conditions for being regarded as a third party which has a legal link to the applicant implying a collaboration with the applicant which is not limited to the project.

75 Furthermore, as regards the concept of ‘undertaking’ in EU competition law and in the rules on State aid, and the definition of SMEs in Regulation No 651/2014, it must be noted that the concept of undertaking used in the context of EU competition and State aid law has no impact on the interpretation of the concept of ‘entities affiliated to a beneficiary’ as it is defined in Article 122(2)(b) of Regulation No 966/2012. The same is true for the definition of SMEs in Regulation No 651/2014.

76 It follows that Tronrud Engineering’s profits, namely the profit margin of 20% on direct costs, cannot be regarded as eligible costs under the grant agreement. As is apparent from paragraph 64 above, the no-profit rule applies also to entities which, like Tronrud Engineering, are affiliated to the applicant, within the meaning of Article 122(2)(b) of Regulation No 966/2012.

77 In the light of the foregoing, the second part of the applicant’s single plea in law must be rejected.

The third part of the single plea in law, concerning the rental period of the PiqlReaders

78 By the third part of the single plea in law, the applicant indicates that, in order to determine whether the cost of renting the 10 PiqlReaders exceeded the depreciation costs which would be expected if similar equipment were acquired, it is necessary to determine the rental period. According to the applicant, the Commission determined, in accordance with the initial rental contract, that the rental period was 13 months and that the monthly rent was NOK 30 000 (approximately EUR 2 913) per unit. However, the rental period was extended from 13 to 25 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, it argues, the monthly rent per machine was NOK 15 600 (approximately EUR 1 515).

79 The Commission disputes the applicant’s arguments.

80 As is indicated in paragraphs 7 and 9 above, the applicant signed, on 12 December 2018, a rental contract with Tronrud Engineering providing that the latter would provide it, for a period of 13 months from 1 March 2019 to 31 March 2020, with 10 PiqlReaders in return for a monthly rental payment of NOK 30 000 per machine, corresponding to total rental costs over the whole period of NOK 3 900 000. By an amendment signed on 31 March 2020, the term of that contract was extended until 31 March 2021. The amendment stated that the amount of rent payments provided in the rental contract would remain unchanged, but would be distributed over a longer period.

81 The applicant claims that the total amount of NOK 3 900 000 had to be divided over 25 months, with the result that the monthly rental payment per PiqlReader was NOK 15 600.

82 In that regard, as regards the rental costs of equipment, Article 6.2, point D.2, fourth subparagraph, of the grant agreement states that ‘the only portion of the costs that will be taken into account is that which corresponds to the duration of the [project] and rate of actual use for the purposes of the [project].’

83 In its observations of 25 November 2021 on the Court of Auditors’ draft audit report, the applicant stated that the total rental cost for the PiqlReaders for the period from 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2020 was NOK 2 700 000 (approximately EUR 262 156). Furthermore, in a computerised spreadsheet appended to its observations, the applicant stated that the total rental cost for the PiqlReaders for the period from 1 October 2020 to 31 March 2021 was NOK 1 200 000 (approximately EUR 116 514).

84 In that spreadsheet, the applicant also stated that, for the second extension of the project, the rental costs for the PiqlReaders had been spread over a period of 19 months, from 1 September 2019 to 31 March 2021, with the smallest rental payments made between March 2020 and August 2020 and between January 2021 and March 2021. In other words, the applicant itself indicated that a period of 19 months had to be taken into consideration when calculating the monthly rental costs for the PiqlReaders.

85 In accordance with those statements from the applicant, the Court of Auditors and the Commission took into consideration a period of 19 months when calculating the monthly amount of the rent for the PiqlReaders. In that regard, the applicant is incorrect to claim that the Court of Auditors took the view that the rental period of the PiqlReaders was 13 months. In fact, it is apparent from the draft audit report from the Court of Auditors that ‘the total rental amount, which remained the same and which was invoiced initially in the audited reporting period 2 [from 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2020] was redistributed to the whole renting period [from 1 September 2019 to 31 March 2021] and [that] an adjustment for [these] costs was reported in the next period.’

86 By simply referring to the fact that the rental contract, following the amendment of 31 March 2020, was signed for a period of 25 months, without establishing that the PiqlReaders were effectively used for the purposes of the project throughout that period, the applicant has not shown that the information it had previously submitted to the Court of Auditors, according to which only a rental period of 19 months had to be taken into account when calculating the monthly amount of the rent for the PiqlReaders, was incorrect.

87 Consequently, the third part of the applicant’s single plea in law must be rejected.

88 In the light of the foregoing, the single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 6 of the grant agreement must be rejected and, accordingly, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.

Costs

89 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules 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.

90 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, in accordance with the form of order sought by that institution.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Piql AS to pay the costs.

Costeira

Öberg

Tichy-Fisslberger

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 19 November 2025.

V. Di Bucci

M. van der Woude

Registrar

President

* Language of the case: English.