Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3314

24.6.2025

(Case T-281/25)

(C/2025/3314)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JB (represented by: P. de Bandt, M.-R. Gherghinaru, V. Heinen and Z. Irusta Ortega, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Space Programme

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the Decision No. 310882/2025, dated 21 February 2025, of the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (‘EUSPA’), or, on a subsidiary basis, annul or substantially reduce the sanctions imposed on the applicant by this decision;

—order the defendant to bear its own as well as the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s right to the inviolability of the commercial premises, as set out in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’) and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human rights (‘ECHR’), the general EU law principles of legal certainty and legality, and the duty to state reasons, as set out in Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).

2.Second plea in law, alleging violation by OLAF of its obligation of impartiality and of the applicant’s right to a good administration, as set out in Article 41 of the Charter, its rights of defence, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR, and the duty to state reasons set out in Article 296 of the TFEU.

3.Third plea in law, alleging violation by EUSPA of the applicant’s right to a good administration, as set out in Article 41 of the Charter, its rights of defence, enshrined in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and in Article 6 of the ECHR and the duty to state reasons, as set out in Article 41 of the Charter, Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 296 of the TFEU.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts and erroneous legal qualification, which amount to a violation of Article 136(1)(d)(ii) read in conjunction with Article 136(2) of Financial Regulation 2018/1046, a violation of Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 2017/1371, a violation of the principles of legality and legal certainty and of the duty to state reasons.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts and erroneous legal qualification in violation of Article 136(1)(c) of Financial Regulation 2018/1046, of the principles of legality and legal certainty and of the duty to state reasons.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of legality, of the duty to state reasons, and of the principle of proportionality with respect to the sanctions adopted.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3314/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—