Case T-316/25: Action brought on 20 May 2025 – eTravel v Frontex
Date: 2025-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, judicial review, maladministration, principle of proportionality, provision of services, right to an effective remedy, tendering, travel








C_202503642EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3642


14.7.2025






Action brought on 20 May 2025 – eTravel v Frontex


(Case T-316/25)

(C/2025/3642)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: eTravel S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Wójcik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) of 30 March 2025 excluding the applicant from Tendering Procedure Frontex/2024/OP/0050 (1)
                  ‘Provision of travel services related to returns by scheduled flights supported by Frontex’;










—


declare the contested decision legally non-existent;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested act, in breach of Article 173(2) of the Financial Regulation (2) and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, does not contain an adequate statement of reasons.










—


The statement of reasons is limited to the citing of a single provision and a single premiss from the ‘Declaration of Honour’, which makes effective judicial review impossible and is in breach of the principle of good administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that there has been no legal assessment of the applicant’s conduct independent of that carried out by OLAF.










—


The decision is based exclusively on the findings and qualifications of OLAF, without an independent assessment by the Agency. This constitutes an impermissible automatic mechanism, shutting off access to effective judicial review.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Agency, in breach of Article 138(3) of the Financial Regulation, completely disregarded the obligation to obtain recommendations from the panel referred to in Article 145 of the Financial Regulation before taking the decision to exclude the applicant.










—


The panel opinion stage is an obligatory part of the procedure for taking a decision regarding exclusion. That failure by the Agency deprived the applicant of procedural guarantees and the right to set out its position.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a complete failure to conduct an analysis concerning the proportionality of the measure applied, in breach of Article 138(4) of the Financial Regulation.










—


Exclusion is an extreme measure which calls for an individual assessment in the context of the application of the principle of proportionality. No such assessment was carried out.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a complete failure to assess the adequacy of the remedial measures applied by the applicant, in breach of Article 138(9) and (10) of the Financial Regulation.










—


Frontex did not refer to the corrective measures presented or to the auditor’s positive opinion, despite the fact that the effectiveness of such actions makes it impossible to apply the penalty of exclusion.






(1)  ARES(2025)2552932.

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L, 2024/2509).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3642/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)