Case T-617/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Safran Aircraft Engines v Commission
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European defence policy, administrative transparency, defence expenditure, equal treatment, financial transparency, fund (EU), investment aid, principle of legal certainty, research and development








C_2023007EN.01003401.xml










9.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/34






Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Safran Aircraft Engines v Commission
(Case T-617/22)
(2023/C 7/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Safran Aircraft Engines (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Hoorelbeke, F. Donnat and M. Perche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision; and










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that the decision of the European Commission, DG DEFIS, with reference Ares (2022)5278390, informing the applicant that its proposal EDF-2021-ENERENV-D-PES-ALPES in response to the Call EDF-2021-ENERENV-D-PES has been rejected, as notified to the applicant on 20 July 2022, is vitiated by errors in law and fact because it holds that the applicant’s proposal EDF-2021-ENERENV-D-PES-ALPES (hereafter the ‘proposal’) in response to the Call for proposals EDF-2021-ENERENV-D-PES (hereafter the ‘PES-Call’) did not meet the minimum qualitative threshold to be considered for award and therefore rejected the applicant’s proposal. The applicant relies on the following pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Articles 188 and 199 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) Article 3(2) and 10(1) Regulation (EU) 2021/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) the principle of transparency, equal treatment and legal certainty as well as the duty of diligence and principles of sound administration, because the Commission:






—


has, in breach of Article 3(2) and 10(1) of Regulation 2021/697, erroneously qualified the PES-Call as a development action instead of a research action, and in doing so violated Article 188 of Regulation 2018/1046 and the principles of transparency and equal treatment which require that the conditions of a call for proposals must be clear and unambiguous so that each participant is in an equal position to submit its proposal and those proposals can be evaluated on equal footing;










—


has violated Article 199 of Regulation 2018/1046 and the principles of transparency and equal treatment by including award criteria which are not pertinent for the scope and nature of the call for proposals, which is clearly a research action; and










—


has violated the principles of transparency, equal treatment and sound administration by not informing the applicant of the changes to the conditions governing the PES-Call after their publication.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 296 TFEU by not explaining clearly how the comments included in the evaluation summary report (hereafter the ‘ESR’) related to the different sub-criteria that were relevant for each award criterion, nor explaining how the comments in the ESR related to the score awarded for each award criterion.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in fact by making a number of manifest errors in assessment in the evaluation of the applicant’s proposal relating






—


first, to the evaluation of the sixth award criterion pertaining to ‘quality and efficiency of the carrying out the action’;










—


second, to a case of double penalization, where the Commission has made the same negative remark concerning the applicant’s proposal under two different award criteria and therefore has deducted twice points for the same shortcoming;










—


third and in the alternative, should the Court hold, contrary to what the applicant argues in the second limb of the first plea in law, that the Commission was entitled to evaluate the applicant’s offer against award criterion 7, to the evaluation of the award criterion 7 aimed at evaluating ‘the contribution to increasing efficiency across the lifecycle of defence products and technologies, including cost-effectiveness and the potential for synergies in the procurement, maintenance and disposal processes’;










—


fourth and in the alternative, should the Court hold, contrary to what the applicant argues in the second limb of the first plea in law, that the Commission was entitled to evaluate the applicant’s offer against award criterion 8, to the evaluation of award criterion 8 aimed at evaluating ‘the contribution to the further integration of the European defence industry throughout the Union through the demonstration by the recipients that Member States have undertaken to jointly use, own or maintain the final product or technology in a coordinated manner’.










(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) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193 du 30.7.2018, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2021/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the European Defence Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1092 (OJ L 170 du 12.5.2021, p. 149).