This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TO0711
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 November 2018.
Bernard Spinoit v European Commission and Others.
Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision — No capacity as a defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part.
Case T-711/17.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 November 2018.
Bernard Spinoit v European Commission and Others.
Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision — No capacity as a defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part.
Case T-711/17.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 November 2018 –
Spinoit v Commission and Others
(Case T‑711/17)
(Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision — No capacity as a defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part)
|
1. |
Action for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — Union delegation — Not a body, office or agency of the EU — Measures adopted by the head of an EU delegation in the context of a tendering procedure — Measures attributable to the Commission (Arts 221 TFEU and 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012; Council Decision 2010/427) (see paras 28, 29) |
|
2. |
Action for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Annulment of a measure which is part of a purely contractual context — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU, 274 TFEU et 288 TFEU) (see paras 31-36) |
|
3. |
Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Injury — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 51-54) |
|
4. |
EU law — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Scope — Applicability to contractual relations linking the Union with third parties — Not included (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41) (see paras 57, 58) |
|
5. |
Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 67) |
|
6. |
Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Insufficient reasoning in a Union act — Not included (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 69) |
Re:
Action, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the letter of 3 August 2017 requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert in the context of a public services contract and, second, under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered further to that decision.
Operative part
|
1. |
The action is dismissed. |
|
2. |
Mr Bernard Spinoit shall pay the costs. |