11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/56

(Case T-93/23)

(2023/C 127/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: C. Lange-Tramoni, K. Kantza and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Allianz Insurance Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare that the claims relating to the cracked and damaged glazing and the detachment of the plaster from the foundation wall of the K3 Building of the Court of Auditors fall within the scope of the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract;

—order the defendant to reimburse the costs and expenses relating to the claims, currently calculated at EUR 90 145 for the glazing and EUR 89 809,55 in respect of the foundation wall, EUR 179 954,55 altogether, plus the statutory interest from the service of this application on the defendant;

—declare that the defendant breached its contractual obligations under the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law based on its right to claim payment for the incidents of damage established after the completion of the K3 Building, by the defendant, in its capacity as insurer, under the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract. In that regard, it submits, in so far as concerns the two claims, that under the terms of that contract, the defendant must bear all the costs incurred by it in that context, and the costs necessary for the related repairs.

In relation to the claim concerning the glazing, the applicant maintains that it is covered by the guarantee under the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract as hidden defects concerning structural work and that the alleged distinction drawn by the defendant between, on the one hand, the design and/or production defects in the glazing manufacturing process and, on the other hand, construction defects, is irrelevant.

As regards the claim concerning the basement wall, the applicant submits that the exclusion clause relied on by the defendant with regard to the damage resulting from the non-performance or partial performance of contractual obligations is not applicable to completed works and that the fact that the damage can be repaired is not such as to call that conclusion into question.