# C_2009220EN.01003601.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/36

---

Action brought on 2 July 2009 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and European Commission Delegation to Morocco

(Case T-264/09)

2009/C 220/76

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tecnoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Commission Delegation to Morocco

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare, pursuant to Article 232 EC, that the EU Delegation to Rabat and the European Commission failed to act; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare, pursuant to Article 232 EC, that the EU Delegation to Rabat and the European Commission failed to act;

| — | declare, pursuant to Article 288 EC, that the Delegation and the Commission have incurred non-contractual liability as regards the applicant and order them, jointly and severally, to pay to the applicant compensation for the damage suffered by it in the sum of EUR 1 000 000,00 (one million). |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, pursuant to Article 288 EC, that the Delegation and the Commission have incurred non-contractual liability as regards the applicant and order them, jointly and severally, to pay to the applicant compensation for the damage suffered by it in the sum of EUR 1 000 000,00 (one million).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case operates in various sectors of the industrial market. Since 2002, Tecnoprocess has operated in the market relating to procedures managed by EuropeAid on behalf of the Commission for the allocation of projects for the grant of external aid to developing countries financed by the EU budget or the European Development Fund. With the present action, the applicant seeks to submit for review by the Court the conduct of the defendants in connection with the implementation of the following contracts:

| — | EuropeAid Contract 1144205/D/S/MA (marché 14/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — RISTORAZIONE; |
| --- | --- |

—

EuropeAid Contract 1144205/D/S/MA (marché 14/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — RISTORAZIONE;

| — | EuropeAid Contract 114194/D/S/MA (marché 15/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — FREDDO; |
| --- | --- |

—

EuropeAid Contract 114194/D/S/MA (marché 15/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — FREDDO;

| — | EuropeAid Contract 114194/D/S/MA (marché 16/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — FREDDO; and |
| --- | --- |

—

EuropeAid Contract 114194/D/S/MA (marché 16/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — FREDDO; and

| — | EuropeAid Contract 12088/D/S/MA — Centre Assistance Technique des Industriels des Equipements pour véchicules (Cetiev) Lots 3 and 6. |
| --- | --- |

—

EuropeAid Contract 12088/D/S/MA — Centre Assistance Technique des Industriels des Equipements pour véchicules (Cetiev) Lots 3 and 6.

The purpose of the first three contracts, which were concluded as part of the MEDA 1 programme, was the provision of equipment and accessories for the restauration and canteen services of the Office de la Formation professionnelle et de la Promotion du Travail (OFPPT) in Rabat.

Office de la Formation professionnelle et de la Promotion du Travail

In implementing those contracts, the OFPPT refused to countersign acknowledgments of receipt for goods, even though it used the products at issue, which were properly supplied by the applicant.

Similar difficulties were encountered in relation to the fourth contract, which was concluded as part of the MEDA 2 programme and related to the provision of highly specialised machinery which was intended for the purpose of carrying out tests on filters for motor vehicles.

According to the applicant, the failure to act on the part of the defendants, which consists in their failure to find a solution that could satisfy the applicant’s interests in response to the serious shortcomings in the performance of the contracts in question, is such as to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community.

The applicant also alleges in this connection infringement of Article 56 of the Finance Regulation, the principles of the protection of legitimate expectation and proportionality and the right to confidentiality.

---