# C_2016270EN.01006601.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/66 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — East West Consulting v Commission

(Case T-298/16)

(2016/C 270/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: East West Consulting SPRL (Nandrin, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------- |

consequently,

| — | rule that the European Commission has incurred non-contractual liability; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant, valued, subject to any adjustment, at EUR 496 000; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed sufficiently serious breaches of rules of law by activating, on the basis of Commission Decision 2008/969/EC, Euratom, of 16 December 2008 on the Early Warning System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies (OJ 2008 L 344, p. 125), Early Warning System (‘EWS’) Warning ‘W3b’ against the applicant, following an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), identifying the level of risk associated with the applicant in its capacity as the person awarded the public service contract concerning a project designed to strengthen the fight against undeclared work in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That plea is divided into five parts:
—
First part, alleging that the decision to issue an EWS warning against the applicant (‘the EWS decision’) is unlawful in that it has no basis in law, and that it infringes both Article 5 TEU and the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence; —
Second part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it infringes the principle of legal certainty as regards the conditions relating to Warning ‘W3b’; —
Third part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it stems from infringements of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the principle of sound administration, of the rights of the defence and of the fundamental right to be heard, and from a failure to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons; —
Fourth part, relied on in the alternative, alleging that the Commission infringed the EWS decision, failed to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter and with the duty of diligence, and infringed the principle of proportionality; —
Fifth part, alleging that the Commission’s reason for refusing to give its agreement is irregular, in so far as it disregards the tender specifications. | — | First part, alleging that the decision to issue an EWS warning against the applicant (‘the EWS decision’) is unlawful in that it has no basis in law, and that it infringes both Article 5 TEU and the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence; | — | Second part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it infringes the principle of legal certainty as regards the conditions relating to Warning ‘W3b’; | — | Third part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it stems from infringements of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the principle of sound administration, of the rights of the defence and of the fundamental right to be heard, and from a failure to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons; | — | Fourth part, relied on in the alternative, alleging that the Commission infringed the EWS decision, failed to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter and with the duty of diligence, and infringed the principle of proportionality; | — | Fifth part, alleging that the Commission’s reason for refusing to give its agreement is irregular, in so far as it disregards the tender specifications. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | First part, alleging that the decision to issue an EWS warning against the applicant (‘the EWS decision’) is unlawful in that it has no basis in law, and that it infringes both Article 5 TEU and the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | Second part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it infringes the principle of legal certainty as regards the conditions relating to Warning ‘W3b’; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | Third part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it stems from infringements of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the principle of sound administration, of the rights of the defence and of the fundamental right to be heard, and from a failure to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | Fourth part, relied on in the alternative, alleging that the Commission infringed the EWS decision, failed to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter and with the duty of diligence, and infringed the principle of proportionality; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | Fifth part, alleging that the Commission’s reason for refusing to give its agreement is irregular, in so far as it disregards the tender specifications. | | | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damage and that there is a causal link between the Commission’s wrongful conduct and that damage. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---