CELEX: 62017TN0280
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-280/17: Action brought on 9 May 2017 — GE.CO.P. v Commission

3.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 213/37
            
         Action brought on 9 May 2017 — GE.CO.P. v Commission
   (Case T-280/17)
   (2017/C 213/51)
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: GE.CO.P. Generale Costruzioni e Progettazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Naticchioni, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should, after declaring unlawful the adoption by the European Commission — Office for Infrastructure and Logistics, Luxembourg — of the decision of 7 March 2017 by which the applicant, GE.CO.P. SpA, was excluded for a period of two years from European tendering procedures and the measure was published, annul that decision and all of the acts which stem from it or are conditional upon it, including those of which the applicant is unaware, and order the Commission to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings.
   
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The contested measure concerns the termination by the Commission of its own motion, on 5 August 2015, of the public works contract No 09bis/2012/OIL — Lot 1 concerning renovation works on two buildings, referred to as the ‘Foyer européen’ located in Luxembourg, awarded to GE.CO.P.
   In support of the action, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 8 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1), as well as infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision was not preceded by a proper adversarial procedure. The applicant claims that it was not informed of the commencement of the exclusion procedure and was therefore not in a position to defend itself in the context of the procedure and put forward arguments in its favour before the adjudicating body.
   Had the applicant been in a position to defend itself, it would have put forward arguments in its defence which would most likely have resulted in a change in the adjudicating body’s opinion on the matter and a different outcome to the overall proceedings, more favourable to GE.CO.P.