# C_2022002EN.01004002.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/40

---

Action brought on 8 October 2021 — Eurecna v Commission

(Case T-654/21)

(2022/C 2/56)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order the Commission to produce the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office with the relevant annexes; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to produce the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office with the relevant annexes; and

| — | 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 obligation to state reasons.






  — | In that regard, the applicant claims that (i) the documents on which the contested decision is based are incoherent and abnormal, (ii) the reasoning in the letter of 25 June 2019 suspending the contract is incorrect and incoherent, (iii) the obligation to state reasons in the investigation documents of the European Anti-Fraud Office has not been fulfilled and (iv) the obligation to state reasons has not been fulfilled due to the indeterminate and generic nature of the European Anti-Fraud Office’s conclusions, which are lacking in substance. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

—

In that regard, the applicant claims that (i) the documents on which the contested decision is based are incoherent and abnormal, (ii) the reasoning in the letter of 25 June 2019 suspending the contract is incorrect and incoherent, (iii) the obligation to state reasons in the investigation documents of the European Anti-Fraud Office has not been fulfilled and (iv) the obligation to state reasons has not been fulfilled due to the indeterminate and generic nature of the European Anti-Fraud Office’s conclusions, which are lacking in substance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and diligence in the administrative action relating to the audit carried out by Ernst & Young. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and diligence in the administrative action relating to the audit carried out by Ernst & Young.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence in respect of the audit carried out by Ernst & Young. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence in respect of the audit carried out by Ernst & Young.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration due to a failure to comply with the duty of impartiality in the administrative action. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration due to a failure to comply with the duty of impartiality in the administrative action.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contract was misinterpreted in the Ernst & Young report. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contract was misinterpreted in the Ernst & Young report.

---