26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/81

(Case T-537/18)

(2018/C 427/108)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Vialto Consulting (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—annul the Commission’s contested decision, whereby the Commission imposed on the applicant a two-year exclusion and published information on that exclusion on its website;

—order the Commission to pay compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant, first because of the two-year exclusion, and second because of the publication of information on that exclusion on its website, that damage being estimated at EUR 434 889,82, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment;

—order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, first because of the two-year exclusion, and second because of the publication of information on that exclusion on its website, that damage being estimated at EUR 400 000, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment;

—order the Commission to pay all the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the European Commission decision Ares (2018) 3463041, dated 29 June 2018, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.The first plea in law is based on an infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/1996, as the European Commission assumes without justification that OLAF did not exceed its powers with respect to conduct of the inspection at the premises of Vialto.

2.The second plea in law is based on an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to the right to good administration and failure to state sufficient reasons.

3.The third plea in law is based on an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

4.The fourth plea in law is based on a breach of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state sufficient reasons, first, in that the European Commission imposed a two-year exclusion on Vialto, and, second, in that the Commission proceeded to publish information of that exclusion on its website.