# C_2019399EN.01009701.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/97

---

Action brought on 2 October 2019 — Companhia de Seguros Índico v Commission

(Case T-672/19)

(2019/C 399/115)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Companhia de Seguros Índico SA (Maputo, Mozambique) (represented by: R. Oliveira and J. Schmid Moura, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision adopted by the European Commission on 18 July 2019; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision adopted by the European Commission on 18 July 2019; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and the pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and the pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good faith and abuse of rights: | The activation by the Gabinete do Ordenador Nacional para a Cooperação entre a República de Moçambique e a UE (Office of the National Authorising Officer for Cooperation between the Republic of Mozambique and the EU) (‘GON’) of the guarantees issued by the applicant, which forms the basis of the present action and which resulted in the adoption of the Commission’s decision which is now being challenged, constitutes a manifest infringement of the principle of good faith and a clear abuse of rights. The fact that the applicant did not pay the guarantees, which were unlawfully activated by GON, led the European Commission to adopt the contested decision by which the applicant is excluded for a period of three years from participating in public procurement procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 and by Regulation (EU/Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council or from being selected to implement Union funds due to alleged grave professional misconduct and alleged significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the Union’s budget. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good faith and abuse of rights:

The activation by the Gabinete do Ordenador Nacional para a Cooperação entre a República de Moçambique e a UE (Office of the National Authorising Officer for Cooperation between the Republic of Mozambique and the EU) (‘GON’) of the guarantees issued by the applicant, which forms the basis of the present action and which resulted in the adoption of the Commission’s decision which is now being challenged, constitutes a manifest infringement of the principle of good faith and a clear abuse of rights. The fact that the applicant did not pay the guarantees, which were unlawfully activated by GON, led the European Commission to adopt the contested decision by which the applicant is excluded for a period of three years from participating in public procurement procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 and by Regulation (EU/Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council or from being selected to implement Union funds due to alleged grave professional misconduct and alleged significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the Union’s budget.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council: | The contested decision must be annulled on the ground that the European Commission committed manifest errors in its ‘preliminary classification in law’ of the applicant’s conduct, in so far as:






  — | the applicant’s conduct cannot be classified as ‘grave professional misconduct’ under Article 106(1)(c) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012; and |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council:

The contested decision must be annulled on the ground that the European Commission committed manifest errors in its ‘preliminary classification in law’ of the applicant’s conduct, in so far as:

—

the applicant’s conduct cannot be classified as ‘grave professional misconduct’ under Article 106(1)(c) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012; and

| — | the applicant’s conduct cannot be classified as ‘significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the budget’ under Article 106(1)(e) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012. |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant’s conduct cannot be classified as ‘significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the budget’ under Article 106(1)(e) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(3) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council: | The contested decision must be annulled on the ground that the European Commission did not comply with the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the exclusion of the applicant is disproportionate. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(3) of Regulation (EU/Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council:

The contested decision must be annulled on the ground that the European Commission did not comply with the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the exclusion of the applicant is disproportionate.

---