Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016TN0151

Case T-151/16: Action brought on 12 April 2016 — NC v Commission

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016, p. 29–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
12/04/2016
Date lodged:
12/04/2016
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment

1.8.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/29

Action brought on 12 April 2016 — NC v Commission

(Case T-151/16)

(2016/C 279/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NC (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, Barristers and C. Van Haute and A. Bernard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 28 January 2016 to exclude the applicant from participation in procedures for the award of procurement contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union, and to enter the applicant in the Early Detection and Exclusion System provided for at Article 108(1) 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 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1);

—

adopt the requested measures of organisation of procedure; and

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient penalty (lex mitior), in failing to apply Regulation No 966/2012 as amended by Regulation 2015/1929 (1) to the contested decision.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of an essential procedural requirement in failing to consult the panel and to revise its decision as required by Regulation No 966/2012 as amended by Regulation 2015/1929.

3.

Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and Article 133a(1) of Regulation No 2342/2002 (2) in applying an exclusion that is disproportionate in the circumstances.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of ne bis in idem to the extent that the applicant has already been excluded for the same conduct.

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

Top