This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TN0426
Case T-426/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Techniplan v Commission
Case T-426/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Techniplan v Commission
Case T-426/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Techniplan v Commission
IO C 279, 24.8.2020, p. 56–56
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.8.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 279/56 |
Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Techniplan v Commission
(Case T-426/20)
(2020/C 279/71)
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:
|
— |
find and declare that the European Commission infringed Article 263 TFEU, in breach of the essential procedural requirements provided for in connection with the adoption of an act which, in the present case, has a direct and individual effect on Techniplan, in so far as it failed to take account of the letter by which the applicant objected to the pre-information and the applicant’s letter of formal notice under Article 265 TFEU; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay an amount of compensation to the applicant for each day of delay in compliance and order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is brought against the decision and simultaneous debit note of 28 May 2020, issued against Techniplan s.r.l., demanding payment of EUR 107 505,66 in respect of the project FED/2011/261-985.
In support of the action, the applicant alleges failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and transparency and infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant claims in this regard:
|
— |
that the final audit report drawn up by a private company showed a series of alleged discrepancies and irregularities in the execution of the works which were disputed in detail by the applicant company, highlighting a number of serious inaccuracies contained in that audit report; |
|
— |
that the applicant company submitted declarations by all the experts involved in the project, made before the Congolese judicial authorities, attesting their actual presence on the works sites; |
|
— |
that the experts were regularly recruited and used by Techniplan in the execution of the works provided for in the contract; |
|
— |
that the applicant company was unjustifiably excluded from the continuation of the contract; |
|
— |
that the payments were blocked without specific justification being provided. |