|
23.1.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 22/58 |
Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Techniplan v Commission
(Case T-853/16)
(2017/C 022/78)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Techniplan Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Bonavita, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare that the European Commission infringed Article 265 TFEU by failing to take a position on the request sent by Techniplan by means of a formal letter of notice; |
|
— |
order the European Commission to meet the obligation to act provided for in Article 266 TFEU and to pay compensation in respect of the damage for each day on which it fails to meet that obligation, as well as to pay its costs and other disbursements. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an engineering company which was awarded a number of projects in African countries (supervision and surveillance of the planning and asphalting works on the Banikoara-Kandi road in Benin, supervision of the works on the Ouallah-Miringoni Road RN32 in the Comoros, supervision of the regular maintenance works on the asphalted roads in Ajouan and Moheli in the Comoros, supervision and monitoring of the regular maintenance works on Grande Comore in the Comoros, monitoring and surveillance of the construction works on the Kinkala-Mindouli National Road No 1 in Congo, supervision and surveillance of the planning and asphalting works on the Bouar-Fambélé road in the Central African Republic, and preparation and monitoring of works in the context of SP NP/HD (support project for the national plans for health development) in the Democratic Republic of Congo).
The applicant states in this respect that all of those projects were completed and certified by the national authorising officers, and that the corresponding invoices were paid and approved by the bodies of the European Commission, which finances the projects. Nevertheless, entirely unexpectedly, invoices started to be paid only in part. The defendant even applied, again according to the applicant, an arbitrary penalty for the benefit of the European Development Fund, without any specific objection being raised. In particular, the European Commission also intended arbitrarily to use credits claimed by Techniplan in order to offset alleged unspecified debts.
The defendant sent a formal letter of notice on the basis of Article 265 TFEU in which it called on the European Commission to adopt a measure or take an official position on its request for payment and the real nature of the penalties applied.
In support of its action, the applicant claims that the competent bodies of the European Commission acted in contravention of the principles of legal certainty and transparency. This situation, Techniplan submits, severely damaged its subjective rights, even though it has a legitimate expectation to know with certainty, at all times and in every situation, what are its EU-law rights and obligations.