62021TJ0175_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 February 2023 –RH v Commission
(Case T‑175/21) (
1
)
(Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance – Financial Regulation – Investigation by OLAF – Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty – Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures funded by the general budget of the European Union and by the EDF – Entry on the database of the early detection and exclusion system – Grave professional misconduct – Manifest error of assessment – Non-contractual liability – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
1.
Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Action against a decision rejecting a tender submitted by a tenderer in the context of a public procurement procedure launched by an EU institution – Plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment on the part of the contracting authority – Burden of proof borne by the applicant
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see paragraph 31)
2.
EU law – Principles – Principle of good administration – Duty of diligence – Scope – Manifest error of assessment by the Commission covered by the breach of that duty
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 966/2012, Art. 106(1), and 2018/1046, Art. 136(1); Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 93(1)(c))
(see paragraphs 62-64, 130)
3.
Fundamental rights – Rights of the defence – Enshrinement in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Identical meaning and scope – Level of protection provided for by the Charter not infringing that guaranteed by that convention
(Art. 6(1), third subpara., TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 48 and 52(3) and (7))
(see paragraph 69)
4.
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – Investigations – Right of the person concerned to be heard – Scope
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2013, Art. 9(4))
(see paragraphs 89, 90, 103)
5.
EU law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Right to be heard – Scope – Obligation to give the person concerned the opportunity to state his or her views orally – None
(see paragraph 95)
6.
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Duty – Scope – Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case
(Art. 296, second para., TFEU)
(see paragraph 109)
7.
Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Action for damages dismissed in its entirety
(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)
(see paragraph 122)
8.
Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of EU law – Requirement that the institutions manifestly and seriously disregard the limits of their discretion – Breach by the Commission of a rule conferring upon it discretion when excluding the applicant from procurement and grant award procedures funded by the general budget of the European Union and by the European Development Fund – Manifest error of assessment of the evidence produced by the applicant – No sufficiently serious breach
(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)
(see paragraphs 123-128, 136-138)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 18 February 2021 excluding RH from participating in award procedures for public procurement and grants governed by the EU budget and by the 11th European Development Fund or from being selected for implementing EU funds under Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 and for implementing funds under the European Development Fund governed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1877;
2.
Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.
Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.