Information;Order — ECLI:EU:T:2025:783
Date: 2025-08-07
Language of the case: French

Action brought on 30 April 2025 – JA v EUSPA (Case T-280/25) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: JA (represented by: M. Chomé, G. Ryelandt and H. Verschueren, lawyers) Defendant: European Union Agency for the Space Programme Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul Article 4 of the contested decision, so that EUSPA is unable to enter the applicant in the EDES register; order EUSPA to pay the applicant the provisional sum of EUR 1 (one) by way of compensation for the damage suffered by him; order the EUSPA to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action against Article 4 of EUSPA Decision 310882/2025 of 21 February 2025 excluding RHEA SYSTEM SA from the procedures for the award of contracts governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 and from the selection for the implementation of Union funds and the imposition of a financial penalty, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis to register the applicant in the EDES database and therefore EUSPA’s lack of competence to do so. According to the applicant’s analysis of the Financial Regulation, it is necessary to have been excluded first before being registered in the EDES and, moreover, EUSPA could have decided to exclude the applicant, which it did not. Lastly, the statement of reasons to justify the registration is, in any event, inadequate and incorrect. Second plea in law, alleging inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision. First, a detailed analysis of the documents used to characterise the acts of active corruption shows that no valid reasons were given to establish those alleged acts. The applicant also observes that insufficient reasons were given for imputing the facts. According to the applicant, the inadequacy of EUSPA’s statement of reasons is all the more apparent from the fact that it does not correspond to that set out in the OLAF report. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 142 and 136 of the Financial Regulation, 1 in so far as EUSPA was to rely on OLAF’s ‘facts and findings’ to register the applicant in the EDES. However, in respect of the applicant specifically, OLAF took the view that it was unable to accuse him of any wrongdoing. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedure carried out by OLAF, in that it did not have prior judicial authorisation, the investigation was extended unlawfully, it took no account of the applicant’s arguments in defence in the OLAF report and the OLAF investigation examined only inculpatory evidence, which invalidates the contested decision since it relies only on the OLAF investigation. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that the contested decision departed from OLAF’s findings without giving sufficient reasons why it took the view that that which was described as a conflict of interest, which did not involve the applicant, was in fact to be described as active corruption, which involved the applicant. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 143(5) and (6) of the Financial Regulation. One part of the annexes on the basis of which OLAF delivered its report was not provided to the applicant so that he could defend himself against his potential registration in the EDES. The applicant maintains that (i) the fact that the panel referred to in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation also did not have those unsent annexes cannot have the effect of limiting his rights of defence; and (ii) that panel could not validly make its recommendations on the basis of an incomplete file. The applicant further argues that he was unable to defend himself in respect of his alleged failure to exercise due care and attention, since that allegation was not included in the panel’s recommendation. Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 143(6) of the Financial Regulation and a failure to state reasons in so far as the contested decision maintains inaccurately that the applicant adduced nothing in support of the remedial measures on which he relied. ____________ 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p.1).