Joined Cases T‑91/12 and T‑280/12

Flying Holding NV and Others

v

European Commission

(Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of non-scheduled passenger transport services by air and chartered air-taxi service — Rejection of application — Article 94(b) of the Financial Regulation — Rights of the defence — Article 134(5) of the detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation — Actions for annulment — Letter responding to a request made by the applicants — Act not amenable to review — Award decision — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 26 September 2014

1.      EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — Exclusion of tenderers — Ability of the awarding authority to enquire of the national authorities to verify the existence of a case of exclusion

(Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 93(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e), and 94(b); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 134(3) and (5))

2.      EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — Exclusion of tenderers having made false statements during the procedure — Obligation to respect the rights of the defence

(Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 94(b); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002)

3.      EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Concept

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20 and 21)

4.      Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure

(Art. 263 TFEU)

5.      Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Purely informative measure — Not included

(Art. 263 TFEU)

6.      Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)

7.      Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision to reject a candidate’s tender before the award phase of a contract — Action by the unsuccessful tenderer against the award decision — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)

8.      Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness —Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety

(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)

1.      Even though Article 134(5) of Regulation No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation refers in general to the situations of exclusion referred to in Article 93(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) of the Financial Regulation, it is clear from the reference made in that paragraph to paragraph 3 of the same article and from the statement that ‘contracting authorities may themselves apply to the competent authorities’ referred to in paragraph 3 that paragraph 5 concerns the case where, as candidates are not obliged to provide the certificates specified in paragraph 3 relating to the situations of exclusion referred to in Article 93(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) of the Financial Regulation, the contracting authority wishes all the same to ensure that those candidates are not in one of those situations of exclusion.

Consequently, in so far as the awarding authority wishes to ensure that there is no misrepresentation by candidates under Article 94(b) of the Financial Regulation, and not under Article 93(1) of that regulation, it is not required to comply with Article 134(5) of Regulation No 2342/2002.

(see paras 47, 48)

2.      A decision to exclude a candidate from a contract based on Article 94(b) of Financial Regulation No 1605/2002 on the ground that it has made false statements is in the nature of an administrative penalty, even if no information concerning it is stored in the database referred to in Article 95 of that regulation. In any event, even assuming that such a decision may not be regarded as having imposed a penalty on the addressees, the general principle of respect for the rights of the defence must be applied by the awarding authority.

The principle of respect for the rights of the defence is of general application and applies, quite apart from cases where an institution plans to impose a penalty, in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person. In that regard, a decision of immediate exclusion constitutes at the very least a measure adversely affecting the addressees, that is to say that it significantly affects their interests, since it has serious financial consequences, or, more generally, it has serious consequences on their situation. Thus, a decision rejecting a candidature on the ground, in particular, of misrepresentation pursuant to Article 94(b) of the Financial Regulation is liable, at the very least, adversely to affect the reputation of the candidates concerned and to have consequences which go beyond the contract in question. In that regard, if the exclusion decision follows a request for information sent to the national authorities owing to the Commission’s doubts as to the veracity of a candidate’s statements, the Commission must be regarded as having intensified its examination of an aspect of the applicants’ application and, by that request for information, taken an action aimed at checking the applicant’s statements which led to the adoption of the exclusion decision.

Moreover, the fact that no provision of the Financial Regulation or of the Implementing Rules requires observance of the rights of the defence in such a case does not, in itself, preclude such a guarantee based on the general principle of respect for the rights of the defence.

In any event, it is for the court to verify, where it considers that an irregularity affecting defence rights has occurred, whether, in the light of the specific factual and legal circumstances of the case, the procedure at issue could have resulted in a different outcome if the applicants had been better able to defend themselves in the absence of that irregularity.

(see paras 55, 63-67, 72)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 69, 70)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 86)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 95-97, 102)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 104)

7.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 107-111)

8.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 115, 118)