Case T-330/26: Action brought on 29 May 2026 – TH v Commission
Date: 2026-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, public procurement, sanction (EU), tendering








C_202603531EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/3531


13.7.2026






Action brought on 29 May 2026 – TH v Commission


(Case T-330/26)

(C/2026/3531)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TH (represented by: M. Bowsher and R. Mehta, Barristers-at-Law, R. Nieuwmeyer and L. Goddeau, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible;










—


annul decision Ares(2026)3019837 of the European Commission of 20 March 2026 relating to the proceeding for its exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024
                   (1) (the ‘Financial Regulation’);










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s 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 Commission failed properly to apply Article 138(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation by misconstruing the concept of ‘grave professional misconduct’ when concluding that regulatory decisions made against the applicant were grave professional misconduct, without any need to demonstrate either ‘wrongful intent’ or ‘gross negligence’. The applicant further alleges that in so doing, the Commission also conflated Article 138(1)(c)(i) and Article 138(1)(c) chapeau.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment, since it did not clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that the applicant’s behaviour was carried out with wrongful intent or gross negligence, such that the applicant had engaged in grave professional misconduct. The facts are not consistent with such a finding.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not examine the facts with the requisite care and impartiality, as required of it pursuant to its duty of diligence, inherent in the right to good administration, as enshrined in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the exclusion period imposed upon the applicant was disproportionate since the wrongful conduct of the applicant was limited to the omission of two minor administrative decisions, and in the alternative, the facts are consistent with negligence, not intention. The applicant further alleges that the Commission also failed to conduct an individualised assessment in setting a starting-point and double-counted intention.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision to publish the Commission’s findings is unlawful, contrary to the requirement of Article 142(2)(b) of the Financial Regulation that information about an exclusion decision shall not be published if it would cause disproportionate damage to the relevant entity.






(1)  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/2026/3531/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)