Action brought on 14 August 2009 - Planet v Commission
(Case T-320/09)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Planet AE, a public limited consultancy company (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
annul the two Commission (OLAF) decisions requesting the applicant's registration initially in category W1a and subsequently in category W1b of the early warning system (EWS);
order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action seeks the annulment, first, of the Commission decision requesting the applicant's registration in category W1a of the early warning system ('the EWS') and, second, of the Commission decision requesting the amendment of that first decision in order to register the applicant from 25 May 2009 in the more unfavourable category W1b of the EWS.
The applicant submits that the contested measures are vitiated by infringement of essential procedural requirements, on account of a failure to comply with the conditions laid down by Decision 2008/969/EC that relate to the procedural rules which must be followed in order for registrations entered in the EWS to be consistent with Community law. In particular, the applicant observes that, under Article 8(1) of that decision, the competent Commission organ responsible for signing a contract is obliged to inform in advance the natural or legal person in respect of whom registration of a warning in the EWS has been requested that data concerning him may be registered. Moreover, under Article 3(1)(c) of the decision, the registration must be accompanied by due reasoning.
The applicant further contends that the failure to comply with the obligations laid down by Article 8 of Decision 2008/969/EC also infringes basic principles and fundamental rights recognised by Community law. In the applicant's submission, the Commission's conduct is contrary to the principle of sound administration, laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Commission did not duly inform the applicant in advance in accordance with the requirements of Article 8(1) of Decision 2008/969/EC, denying it the possibility of making its views known. At the same time, the Commission breached its duty of care. Furthermore, the Commission's conduct infringes Article 1 of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour applicable to Commission staff in their relations with the public.
Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the right to a prior hearing, rights of defence and the presumption of innocence since the applicant was not given the opportunity to make known its views and its objections regarding the decisions as to registration in the EWS which were to be adopted by the competent Commission organ.
____________1 - Commission Decision 2008/969/EC, Euratom of 16 December 2008 on the Early Warning System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies (OJ 2008 L 344, p. 125).