# C_2021452EN.01004301.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/43

---

Action brought on 6 August 2021 — Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case T-493/21)

(2021/C 452/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Sciaudone and D. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the countersignature of the European Union Delegation in Ankara of the liquidation of the financial guarantee (the ‘contested act’) invoked by the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology — DG for EU and Foreign Affairs — Directorate of EU Financial Programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the countersignature of the European Union Delegation in Ankara of the liquidation of the financial guarantee (the ‘contested act’) invoked by the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology — DG for EU and Foreign Affairs — Directorate of EU Financial Programmes;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care, impartiality, equality of arms and Article 78 of the Financial Regulation. (1)







  — | According to this plea, 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, the applicant argues, also infringes Articles 78 of the said Financial Regulation and Article 82 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012. (2) According to these provisions, the EU authorising officer should personally check documents. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care, impartiality, equality of arms and Article 78 of the Financial Regulation. (1)

—

According to this plea, 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, the applicant argues, also infringes Articles 78 of the said Financial Regulation and Article 82 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012. (2) According to these provisions, the EU authorising officer should personally check documents.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.






  — | It is argued by the applicant that the contested act did not provide the applicant 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. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.

—

It is argued by the applicant that the contested act did not provide the applicant 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.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.






  — | The applicant points out that it was not part of the administrative procedure that the Commission carried out to decide whether or not to instruct the European Delegation in Ankara to countersign the liquidation of the guarantee. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

—

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

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.






  — | It is argued that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to balance the contracting authority’s request and the sums owed to the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

—

It is argued that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to balance the contracting authority’s request and the sums owed to the applicant.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the conditions to liquidate the guarantee.






  — | The contested act, in the applicant’s opinion, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the conditions, all related to the alleged breach of the service contract, to liquidate the guarantee. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the conditions to liquidate the guarantee.

—

The contested act, in the applicant’s opinion, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the conditions, all related to the alleged breach of the service contract, to liquidate the guarantee.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

---