# C_2017402EN.01004201.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/42

---

Action brought on 7 September 2017 — Vialto Consulting v Commission

(Case T-617/17)

(2017/C 402/56)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vialto Consulting Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 190 951,93, as the actual loss which it has caused the applicant, and the sum of EUR 129 992,63 as loss of profit, with interest for late payment from delivery of judgment on the present dispute until settlement in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 190 951,93, as the actual loss which it has caused the applicant, and the sum of EUR 129 992,63 as loss of profit, with interest for late payment from delivery of judgment on the present dispute until settlement in full;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 150 000, as compensation for the harm to professional reputation which it has caused the applicant, with interest for late payment from delivery of judgment on the present dispute until settlement in full; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 150 000, as compensation for the harm to professional reputation which it has caused the applicant, with interest for late payment from delivery of judgment on the present dispute until settlement in full; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the public limited company named ‘Vialto Consulting Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság’ (‘Vialto’) seeks from the General Court of the European Union, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU in conjunction with Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the damage which it has suffered on account of unlawful conduct on the part of the Anti-Fraud Office (‘OLAF’) and of other services of the European Commission (‘the Commission’), in the context of performance of service contract No TR2010/0311.01-02/001 financed by the European Union, which had been entered into between the Central Finance and Contracts Unit (‘the CFCU’) of the Republic of Turkey and a consortium of companies in which Vialto participated.

Specifically, the Commission — both through OLAF and through other Commission services — has caused Vialto the following damage: (a) financial loss amounting to EUR 190 951,93 as actual loss; (b) financial loss amounting to EUR 129 992,63 as loss of profit; and (c) non-material harm amounting to EUR 150 000 on account of injury to its professional reputation.

Vialto submits that it has suffered the foregoing damage on account of acts and omissions of the Commission both during the on-the-spot check that OLAF carried out in respect of Vialto and after that check. It submits, more specifically, that the Commission infringed the following rules, which confer rights on individuals:

| — | Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/1996 in relation to the carrying out of checks on the part of OLAF, particularly in relation to its conferred and limited power to check; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/1996 in relation to the carrying out of checks on the part of OLAF, particularly in relation to its conferred and limited power to check;

| — | the right to good administration, the right to protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality, in relation to the check that OLAF carried out; |
| --- | --- |

—

the right to good administration, the right to protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality, in relation to the check that OLAF carried out;

| — | the right to be heard, in relation to the acts of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations after OLAF’s check was completed. |
| --- | --- |

—

the right to be heard, in relation to the acts of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations after OLAF’s check was completed.

---