# C_2014194EN.01003501.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/35

---

Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Seca Benelux and Others v Parliament

(Case T-311/14)

2014/C 194/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Seca Benelux SPRL (Brussels, Belgium); Groupe Seca SA (Valenciennes, France); and Seca Ingénierie SAS (Valenciennes) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Parliament of 21 February 2014 not to retain the bid it submitted for the award of the contract for technical management of the buildings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg (Call for tenders No INLO.AO-2013-003-STR-UGIMS-03) and to grant the contract to another tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Parliament of 21 February 2014 not to retain the bid it submitted for the award of the contract for technical management of the buildings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg (Call for tenders No INLO.AO-2013-003-STR-UGIMS-03) and to grant the contract to another tenderer;

| — | before making its ruling, order the Parliament to produce the following documents:






  — | the list of the main similar services supplied by the other tenderer over the previous three years, stating their amount, date and recipient, public or private; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

before making its ruling, order the Parliament to produce the following documents:

—

the list of the main similar services supplied by the other tenderer over the previous three years, stating their amount, date and recipient, public or private;

| — | the document(s) showing the academic and professional qualifications of the personnel put forward by the tenderer in order to carry out the contract and including the information required on pages 11 to 27 of the technical specifications and in the minutes of the required visit of the premises and answers to the tenderers’ questions; |
| --- | --- |

—

the document(s) showing the academic and professional qualifications of the personnel put forward by the tenderer in order to carry out the contract and including the information required on pages 11 to 27 of the technical specifications and in the minutes of the required visit of the premises and answers to the tenderers’ questions;

| — | the documents(s) showing that the Parliament in fact checked whether the academic and professional qualifications of the personnel put forward by the tenderer for the contract which it had received were indeed compatible with the contract documentation, in particular on pages 11 to 27 of the technical specifications and in the minutes of the required visit of the premises and answers to the tenderers’ questions; |
| --- | --- |

—

the documents(s) showing that the Parliament in fact checked whether the academic and professional qualifications of the personnel put forward by the tenderer for the contract which it had received were indeed compatible with the contract documentation, in particular on pages 11 to 27 of the technical specifications and in the minutes of the required visit of the premises and answers to the tenderers’ questions;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a failure to verify the selection criteria in breach of the rules of Article 110(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) and Article 148 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (2), of the procurement documents and the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to verify the selection criteria in breach of the rules of Article 110(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) and Article 148 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (2), of the procurement documents and the principle of sound administration.

1

2

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the tenderers’ technical ability, in breach of Article 110(1) of Regulation No 966/2012, Articles 146(2) and 148 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012, the rules set out in the procurement documents, and the principles of sound administration and equal treatment of tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the tenderers’ technical ability, in breach of Article 110(1) of Regulation No 966/2012, Articles 146(2) and 148 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012, the rules set out in the procurement documents, and the principles of sound administration and equal treatment of tenderers.

---

(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

---