# C_2021128EN.01003901.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/39

---

Action brought on 14 January 2021 — Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case T-22/21)

(2021/C 128/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s letter of 4 November 2020 (Ref. Ares(2020)6365704) relating to the liquidation of the financial guarantee invoked by the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology — DG for EU and Foreign Affairs — Directorate of EU Financial Programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s letter of 4 November 2020 (Ref. Ares(2020)6365704) relating to the liquidation of the financial guarantee 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)







  — | 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. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

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

—

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.

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






  — | 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. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

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

—

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.

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






  — | 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. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

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

—

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.

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






  — | 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. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

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

—

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.

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






  — | 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. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

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

—

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.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 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).

---