CELEX: 62015TN0542
Language: en
Date: 2015-09-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-542/15: Action brought on 19 September 2015 — Hongrie v Commission

7.12.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 406/35
            
         Action brought on 19 September 2015 — Hongrie v Commission
   (Case T-542/15)
   (2015/C 406/35)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: D. Bonhage and F. Quast, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision C(2015) 4979 final of 14 July 2015 on the suspension of part of the interim payments from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund for expenditure in the programs Transport, Central Hungary, West Pannon, South Great Plain, Central Transdanubia, North Hungary, North Great Plain and South Transdanubia — CCI 2007HU161PO007, CCI 2007HU161PO003, CCI 2007HU161PO004, CCI 2007HU161PO005, CCI 2007HU161PO006, CCI 2007HU161PO009, CCI 2007HU161PO011, CCI 2007HU161PO001;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to bear the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging non-compliance of the Decision C(2015) 4979 final on suspension of interim payments from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund with Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, p. 25):
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           according to the applicant, the contested decision infringes Article 92 of Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 as the expenditure concerned is not linked to a serious irregularity;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the applicant further puts forward that the Hungarian authorities implemented the operational programmes in compliance with EU law. According to the applicant, the beneficiaries procured the works and services for the implementation of the programmes in accordance with the Public Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114);
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           finally, according to the applicant, availability of an asphalt mixing plant in a specified maximum distance to the site at bid submission was a proportionate technical suitability criterion in the procurement of the road construction works.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           according to the applicant, the contested decision infringes the right of defence of Hungary, as the Commission did not take into account material matters of law and of fact which Hungary brought to its attention prior to the contested decision;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           furthermore, so the applicant claims, had it not been for this irregularity, the outcome of the procedure had been different and therefore, the infringement of the right of defence has to lead to the annulment of the contested decision.