—

annul the decision of the Commission directly addressed to the applicant and dated 20 July 2020 (the contested decision), excluding the applicant from participating in contract award procedures governed by the EU budget and by the 11th European Development Fund or from being selected for implementing Union funds under Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (1) and for implementing funds under the European Development Fund governed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 (2); and,

—

order the Commission to pay its costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration, the prohibition of the abuse of rights, the duty of care and Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 (3).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that OLAF failed to correctly address the applicant in breach of the right of defence, the duty of care and due process.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 7 and 9 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 and the right of good administration, the duty of care and due process.

4.

Fourth plea in law alleging a breach of Article 9(4) of the basic OLAF Regulation and the right to due process and the obligation to state reasons.

5.

Fifth plea in law alleging that OLAF acted in breach of Article 7(8) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 and the principle of good administration.

6.

Sixth plea in law alleging a breach of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 and the right of good administration.

7.

Seventh plea in law alleging that the EDES Panel acted in breach of Articles 41, 47, 48 and 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in making a preliminary classification in law of the facts established by OLAF.

8.

Eighth plea in law alleging that the redacted OLAF Final Report did not allow the EDES Panel to make an independent judgement or adequately assess the weight of the submission of the applicant in breach of the principle of good administration and Articles 135 to 143 of the Financial Regulation.

9.

Ninth plea in law alleging that neither lobbying nor success fees are per se illegal and by making this assumption there was a breach of the principle of good administration.

10.

Tenth plea in law alleging that the core of the findings of the contested decision in relation to the applicant are flawed in that the EDES Panel and the appointing authority (DG NEAR) acted in breach of the fundamental rights of the applicant and in particular the principles of good administration, the duty of care, and that the contested decision is not adequately reasoned.

11.

Eleventh plea in law alleging breach of Article 13(2) of the EDES Panel Rules of Procedure and the right of defence.

12.

Twelfth plea in law alleging that the EDES Panel must have had information other than the redacted Final Report in breach of Article 13(2) of the EDES Panel’s rules of procedure.

13.

Thirteenth plea in law alleging that the extent of the redaction of the redacted OLAF Final Report was such as to be in breach of the principle of good administration, the duty of care and due process.

14.

Fourteenth plea in law alleging that the sanction was set at a level that was influenced by the different breaches of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, the Financial Regulation and the fundamental principles of law.

15.

Fifteenth plea in law alleging that the redacted Final Report does not show that the curriculum of an expert was doctored or fabricated and thus the contested decision on this point is unfounded and in breach of the principles of good administration, the duty of care and the right of defence.

16.

Sixteenth plea in law alleging that the OLAF Operational Analysis Report was inadequate for the purposes intended in breach of the principles of good administration and the right of defence.