—

The Commission, it is argued, made manifest errors of assessment which formed the basis for the erroneous finding that the Milan Ruling constituted a final judgment of guilt.

—

The applicants also allege that the Commission made key manifest errors of assessment with respect to Italian law.

—

The said Article 136(1)(d)(ii) provides that exclusion requires that there is a final judgment of guilt establishing that the entity or person is guilty of corruption.

—

The Milan Ruling, it is argued, cannot be considered a final judgment of guilt and did not convict the second and third applicants of corruption; consequently, the Commission could not legally exclude the first applicant under Article 136(1)(d)(ii) of the Financial Regulation.

—

The Commission claimed in the contested decision that the term ‘final judgment of guilt’ has an autonomous meaning in EU law and yet, the applicants argue, it failed to provide a definition or indicate a legal basis for this assessment.

—

It is, furthermore, alleged that the Commission failed to consider the classification of the Milan Ruling in Italian law.

—

The elements assessed by the Commission under Article 136(4) of the Financial Regulation were, in the applicants’ view, insufficient to establish that the conditions of this provision were met and were tainted by the Commission’s erroneous interpretation of the Milan Ruling.

—

The applicants maintain in this regard that the Commission breached Article 296 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—

It is also argued that the Commission failed to state reasons in relation to the two conclusions that had a decisive influence over the final decision.

—

The decision to publish the exclusion decision on the website of DG NEAR and to register the names and personal information of the second and third applicants in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database was, according to the applicants, manifestly disproportionate.

—

The Commission, it is also argued, failed to consider factors in Article 136(3) of the Financial Regulation.

—

It is asserted that the Commission failed to consider requests from the applicants during the adversarial proceedings to seek clarification as to the possible remedial measures available to them.

—

The Commission failed to consider ample evidence provided to it by the applicants which was capable of being considered as remedial measures.

—

The Commission, it is thus finally argued, violated Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by not informing the fourth applicant that it was carrying out an assessment on his person and by not providing him with the right to a defence.