—

It is argued that the Commission did not verify the decision to liquidate the guarantee taken by the Turkish authorities. Indeed, the Commission asked the Turkish authorities to check the decision themselves. This conduct infringes Article 78 of the Financial Regulation read together with Articles 80, 81 and 82 of the Delegated Regulation. (2) According to these provisions, the EU authorising officer should personally check documents.

—

The applicant argues that the contested decision did not provide it with sufficient information to make it possible to ascertain whether the act is well founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect that may permit it to challenge its legality before the European Union judicature and, second, to enable that same judicature to review the legality of that act.

—

It is argued that the applicant was not part of the administrative procedure that the Commission carried out to decide whether to instruct or not the European Delegation in Ankara to countersign the liquidation of the guarantee.

—

The applicant argues that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to balance the Contracting Authority’s request and the sums owed to the applicant.

—

It is argued that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the conditions, all related to the alleged breach of the service contract, applicable to the liquidation of the guarantee.