# C_2014245EN.01001901.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/19

---

Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Argus Security Projects v Commission

(Case T-266/14)

2014/C 245/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and E. van Nuffel d'Heynsbroeck, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the EUBAM Libya not to accept the tender submitted by Argus in the a call for tender negotiated procedure concerning the supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (contract EUBAM-13-020), and the decision to award the contract to Garda; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the EUBAM Libya not to accept the tender submitted by Argus in the a call for tender negotiated procedure concerning the supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (contract EUBAM-13-020), and the decision to award the contract to Garda;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 110 of the Financial Regulation (1), of the rules laid down in the specifications for the award of the contract, in particular points 4.1 and 12.1 of the instructions to tenderers, and of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and non-discrimination, in so far as the EUBAM did not check the abilities of the successful tenderer to perform the contract in accordance with the requirements of the contract or failed to exercise its discretion as regards the expected technical qualities of the successful tender with the minimum rigour reasonably to be expected.
  The applicant submits that the serious failings by the successful tenderer and its inability to carry out the contract awarded to it show that the tender was unrealistic and ought not to have been accepted by the adjudicating authority. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 110 of the Financial Regulation (1), of the rules laid down in the specifications for the award of the contract, in particular points 4.1 and 12.1 of the instructions to tenderers, and of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and non-discrimination, in so far as the EUBAM did not check the abilities of the successful tenderer to perform the contract in accordance with the requirements of the contract or failed to exercise its discretion as regards the expected technical qualities of the successful tender with the minimum rigour reasonably to be expected.

1

The applicant submits that the serious failings by the successful tenderer and its inability to carry out the contract awarded to it show that the tender was unrealistic and ought not to have been accepted by the adjudicating authority.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a substantive amendment to the initial conditions of the contract liable to distort the result of the call for tenders.
  The applicant submits that the relation between the points awarded to the successful tenderer and to the applicant for all the assessment criteria would have been reversed if the successful tender had been assessed taking into account the conditions in which the successful tenderer performs the contract. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a substantive amendment to the initial conditions of the contract liable to distort the result of the call for tenders.

The applicant submits that the relation between the points awarded to the successful tenderer and to the applicant for all the assessment criteria would have been reversed if the successful tender had been assessed taking into account the conditions in which the successful tenderer performs the contract.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons, in so far as the adjudicating authority failed to comply with Article 113 of the Financial Regulation and Article 161(2) of the Delegated Regulation (2), since the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender were not communicated within 15 calendar days following the applicant’s request. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons, in so far as the adjudicating authority failed to comply with Article 113 of the Financial Regulation and Article 161(2) of the Delegated Regulation (2), since the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender were not communicated within 15 calendar days following the applicant’s request.

2

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

2

---