This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0320
Case T-320/15: Action brought on 19 June 2015 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission
Case T-320/15: Action brought on 19 June 2015 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission
Case T-320/15: Action brought on 19 June 2015 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission
OJ C 254, 3.8.2015, p. 22–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
3.8.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 254/22 |
Action brought on 19 June 2015 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission
(Case T-320/15)
(2015/C 254/25)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, M. Santacroce and M. Toniolo, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul it its entirety the contested decision, by which the Commission excluded Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA from participation in all procedures for the award of contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union, including procedure No JRC/IPR/2014/C.5/0003 RC published in OJ 2014/S 034-054569 and subsequent corrigenda, for a period of two years and ten months; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The exclusion procedure was initiated when the applicant participated in a restricted call for tender issued by the Joint Research Centre on 18 February 2014 for the construction of a new building on its Ispra site. The Commission was aware of certain irregularities on the part of the applicant.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging failure to conduct an investigation, misrepresentation of the facts and a consequential error in law consisting in failure to apply the derogation laid down in the final sub-paragraph of Article 106(1) of the Financial Regulation.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that Article 106(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation is inapplicable.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the audi alteram partem rule.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in determining the exclusion period.
|