This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TJ0537
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2022.
Vialto Consulting Kft. v European Commission.
Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance – Grants – Investigations by OLAF – Administrative penalty – Exclusion, for a period of two years, from public procurement procedures and from procedures for the award of grants financed from the general budget of the European Union – Obligation to state reasons – Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2185/96 – Principle of good administration – Legitimate expectations – Unlimited jurisdiction – Proportionality of the penalty.
Case T-537/18.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2022.
Vialto Consulting Kft. v European Commission.
Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance – Grants – Investigations by OLAF – Administrative penalty – Exclusion, for a period of two years, from public procurement procedures and from procedures for the award of grants financed from the general budget of the European Union – Obligation to state reasons – Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2185/96 – Principle of good administration – Legitimate expectations – Unlimited jurisdiction – Proportionality of the penalty.
Case T-537/18.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2022:852
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2022 –
Vialto Consulting v Commission
(Case T‑537/18) ( 1 )
(Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance – Grants – Investigations by OLAF – Administrative penalty – Exclusion, for a period of two years, from public procurement procedures and from procedures for the award of grants financed from the general budget of the European Union – Obligation to state reasons – Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2185/96 – Principle of good administration – Legitimate expectations – Unlimited jurisdiction – Proportionality of the penalty)
1. |
Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure – None – Amplification of an existing plea – No amplification – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1)) (see paragraphs 46-48) |
2. |
Action for annulment – Pleas in law – Pleas in law and complaints which cannot lead to the annulment of the contested measure – Ineffective pleas in law (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paragraph 53) |
3. |
Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigation report – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paragraph 56) |
4. |
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c)) (see paragraphs 63-65) |
5. |
Actions for damages – Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment – Scope (Arts 263, fourth para., and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paragraph 75) |
6. |
Judicial proceedings – Res judicata – Scope – Preliminary ruling by the Court on the validity of an EU law measure – Action for annulment putting forward pleas and arguments similar to those relied on in the preliminary ruling proceedings – Judgment of the Court not res judicata – Division of competences between the Court of Justice and the General Court – Points of law decided by the Court called into question by the General Court (Arts 263 and 267 TFEU) (see paragraph 77) |
7. |
Own resources of the European Union – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Fight against fraud and other illegal activities – Obligation of the Member States to establish effective and deterrent penalties – Offences affecting the financial interests of the European Union – Freedom to conduct a business – Business secrecy – Restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights justified in the public interest – Observance by the Commission of the principle of sound financial management (Arts 310, 317 and 325(1) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 16; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2013, Art. 3(2); Council Regulation No 2185/96, Art. 7(1)) (see paragraphs 86-89) |
8. |
EU law – Principles – Principle of sound administration – Duty of the competent institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case – Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) (see paragraphs 100, 101) |
9. |
EU law – Principles – Principle of sound administration – Duty of diligence – Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) (see paragraph 104) |
10. |
EU law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities – Meaning (see paragraphs 121, 122) |
11. |
EU law – Principles – Proportionality – Scope (see paragraphs 135, 165) |
12. |
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – Investigations – On-the spot checks and inspections – Determination of the information and documents necessary for on-the spot checks and inspections to be carried out properly – OLAF’s discretion (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2013, Art. 3; Council Regulation No 2185/96, Art. 7(1)) (see paragraph 146) |
13. |
EU budget – Financial regulation – Administrative sanctions which may be imposed by the Commission – Compliance with the principle of proportionality in determining the financial penalty imposed – Judicial review – Unlimited jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1929, Arts 106(3) and 108(11)) (see paragraphs 162, 179) |
14. |
Action for annulment – Pleas in law – Infringement of essential procedural requirements – Failure to comply with a mandatory procedural requirement liable to render the final decision of an institution unlawful – Conditions (Art. 263, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 2(7)(c)) (see paragraph 183) |
15. |
Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Action for damages dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paragraphs 189, 190) |
16. |
Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Meaning (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paragraph 191) |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
2. |
Orders Vialto Consulting Kft. to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.