7.11.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/72

(Case T-335/09)

2009/C 267/131

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicants: Groupement Adriano, Jaime Ribeiro, Conduril-Construção (Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal) (represented by A. Pinto Cardoso and L. Fuzeta da Ponte, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in debit note No 3230905272 of 12 June 2009 and of the decision contained in the notification of 3 August 2009 ordering the applicant to pay that note within a period of 15 days, together with default interest, in performance of Contract AH 04/2004, concluded for the construction of a section of highway between Tangiers and Saida (‘Mediterranean Bypass Project’), financed by the Community under Programme MEDA I;

—an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The measures are actionable, for they are decisive and definitive in nature and have binding effect, and the parties have capacity to bring proceedings.

Both measures are marred by:

Absolute lack of powers: the defendant is not the ‘pouvoir adjudicateur’ (the contracting authority), because there is no contractual provision whatsoever to support the defendant’s conduct. The defendant thus not only lacks powers, but also any competence in these proceedings.

Breach of essential procedural requirements, in particular, the duty to state reasons: as provided for in Article 253 of the Treaty, reasons must be given for Community measures. In accordance with the case-law, the reasoning must be express, clear, coherent and relevant. The measure may not be implied or based on tacit grounds, nor may it be clothed in obscurity. There must be no contradiction between the grounds or between the grounds and the enacting terms. The contested decisions lack any grounds whatsoever. There is also a breach of the essential procedural requirement of an indication of the legal remedies.

infringement of the rules of the Treaty, that is to say, of Articles 211 to 219, of the defendant’s own internal regulations and of the principle ‘pacta sunt servanda’.