Case C-520/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2012 by Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-369/11: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE v European Commission, Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU)
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU financing, EU institution, European official, Türkiye, administrative responsibility, award of contract, infringement of EU law, pre-accession aid, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence








C_2013026EN.01003501.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/35





Appeal brought on 16 November 2012 by Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-369/11: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE v European Commission, Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU)
(Case C-520/12 P)
2013/C 26/66
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE (represented by: A. Krystallidis, Δικηγόρος)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the order under appeal










—


Declare its action before the General Court admissible










—


Hold the case and repair the damages caused to Appellant by the unlawful Defendant’s decision of 5 April 2011 issued by the EU Delegation in Turkey and received by the Applicant on 6 April 2011, on the cancellation of the award of the contract ‘Enlargement of the European Turkish Business Centers Network to Sivas, Antakya, Batman and Van — Europe Aid/128621/D/SET/TR’ to the Consortium “DIADIKASIA BUSINESS CONSULTANS S.A. (GR) — WYG INTERNATIONAL LTD (UK) — DELEEUW INTERNATIONAL LTD (TR)’ — CYBERPARK (TR) due to allegedly false declaration, in view of the Appellant’s horizontal interest in the case in question.










—


Order the Commission to pay all of the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the first plea, the Appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law in the application of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), in the sense that it failed to understand that the term ‘institution’ contained in the above-mentioned article is not only referring to the Institutions of the European Union, but also to the servants of the EU, they being equally liable for the recovery of damages by individuals who have suffered loss as a result of its action.
In the second plea, the Appellant maintains that the General Court violated the duty to state reasons and violated Articles 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), as principles of the Union's law, since it dismissed the Appellant's action as inadmissible without making reference to its observations on the plea of inadmissibility of the Defendant, referring to the relevant case law of damages caused by EU officials (Case 9/69, 4/69, 60/81), and to the interpretation of Article 263 TFEU, according to the above mentioned case law. The order also failed to reply to the Appellant's arguments regarding the Defendant's serious violation of the fundamental European principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and right to be heard as well as of the article 4 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
In the third plea, the Appellant maintains that the General Court wrongly presented and distorted the evidence adduced by the Appellant at first instance, when it decided, that ‘the CFCU alone had the status of contracting authority. to adopt a decision to award the contract at issue. and the Commission's competence was solely to establish whether or not conditions for EU financing had been met’, based on documents that the Appellant put before the Court, which actually prove that the CFCU functions under the control and the limits set by European Commission. The findings of the order under appeal are therefore incorrect and distort the clear sense of the evidence available to the General Court.