19.2.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

(Case T-815/17)

(2018/C 063/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Korbel, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Form of order sought

—annul Decision C(2014) 8572, reference INEA/ASI/MZ apr Ares(2017), of the European Commission of 11 October 2017.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the connection between the public contracts ‘Engineering and environmental analysis of the new rail link Lovosice-Dresden in the territory of the Czech Republic’, ‘Evaluation of the project of the new rail link Prague-Dresden in the territory of the Czech Republic’ and ‘New railway Litoměřice-Ústí nad Labem-German frontier’. According to the contested decision, those public contracts are closely linked together and should have been awarded together as being above the threshold. That conclusion is based on an incorrect legal assessment of the matter; the subjects of those public contracts are mutually distinguishable and their implementation required different professional qualifications.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not contain sufficiently specific reasons on the connection between the public contracts, and in particular

—does not state detailed reasons for the technical connection between the public contracts which it incorrectly deduces;

—does not state which specific national and European rules, or which specific provisions of those rules, were infringed;

—does not state any consideration capable of being reviewed as to what the defendant was guided by and what it took and what it did not take into account in reaching its decision on the actual amount it describes as ineligible.

3.Third plea in law, based on the fact that the decision on financial aid which the applicant was obliged to comply with states clearly, on page 13, that ‘in the case of the Czech beneficiary, three contracts are planned: for activity No 4 (first part — technical study), for activities Nos 2, 3, 5 and 6, and for activities Nos 1, 4 (second part — economic study) and 7’.

—When delimiting the subject of the public contracts, the applicant took those provisions into account, and legitimately expected that the approach provided for by the decision on financial aid would not subsequently be regarded as mistaken.

—The contested decision none the less now states, however, that ‘the whole (technical) subject of the public contract could be covered by a single agreement’, which infringes the applicant’s legitimate expectations, which it was able to have, and did have, in the light of the decision on financial aid.