# C_2014409EN.01006001.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/60

---

Action brought on 24 September 2014 — TV1 v Commission

(Case T-700/14)

2014/C 409/81

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TV1 GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: C. Scherer-Leydecker, J. Mey and A. Rausch, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the award decision of the European Commission relating to Stage IV of tender procedure PO/2014-03/A4 and annul the decision of the defendant not to award the contract to the applicant, communicated on 25 July 2014, as well as the decision of the defendant to award the contract for Stage IV to another undertaking, communicated on 1 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the award decision of the European Commission relating to Stage IV of tender procedure PO/2014-03/A4 and annul the decision of the defendant not to award the contract to the applicant, communicated on 25 July 2014, as well as the decision of the defendant to award the contract for Stage IV to another undertaking, communicated on 1 August 2014;

| — | Annul the service contract concluded as a result of or subsequent to the award; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the service contract concluded as a result of or subsequent to the award;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs, including the costs of the proceedings, experts’ costs and the expenses incurred by the applicant for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular travel and accommodation costs and lawyers’ remuneration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs, including the costs of the proceedings, experts’ costs and the expenses incurred by the applicant for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular travel and accommodation costs and lawyers’ remuneration;

| — | Order the defendant, by way of measure of enquiry in accordance with Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to produce the award document and other relevant documents and to ensure that the applicant has full access to the file. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant, by way of measure of enquiry in accordance with Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to produce the award document and other relevant documents and to ensure that the applicant has full access to the file.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an abnormally low offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract
  The applicant claims that the Commission failed to carry out a thorough investigation of the, according to the applicant, abnormally low offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract, and failed to exclude that offer or the tenderer from the tender procedure. The Commission thereby failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 110(2) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) in conjunction with Article 151 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (2) and infringed its obligation under Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to ensure good administration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an abnormally low offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract

The applicant claims that the Commission failed to carry out a thorough investigation of the, according to the applicant, abnormally low offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract, and failed to exclude that offer or the tenderer from the tender procedure. The Commission thereby failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 110(2) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) in conjunction with Article 151 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (2) and infringed its obligation under Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to ensure good administration.

1

2

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging incorrect tendering documents
  The applicant claims in addition that the Commission infringed procurement law principles, in particular the principles of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination and fair competition, as well as Article 102 of the EU Financial Regulation.
  The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission failed to satisfy the conditions of Article 105 of the Financial Regulation concerning clear and precise tendering documents. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging incorrect tendering documents

The applicant claims in addition that the Commission infringed procurement law principles, in particular the principles of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination and fair competition, as well as Article 102 of the EU Financial Regulation.

The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission failed to satisfy the conditions of Article 105 of the Financial Regulation concerning clear and precise tendering documents.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of the offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract
  In this regard, the applicant claims that the assessment of the offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons and was based on errors of fact and law and misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of the offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract

In this regard, the applicant claims that the assessment of the offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons and was based on errors of fact and law and misuse of power.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of the offer submitted by the applicant
  The applicant claims moreover that the information provided by the Commission concerning the offer submitted by the applicant failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons and the Commission clearly erred in its assessment of the offer submitted by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of the offer submitted by the applicant

The applicant claims moreover that the information provided by the Commission concerning the offer submitted by the applicant failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons and the Commission clearly erred in its assessment of the offer submitted by the applicant.

---

(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

---