# C_2014380EN.01002101.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/21

---

Action brought on 8 September 2014 — AF Steelcase v OHIM

(Case T-652/14)

2014/C 380/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AF Steelcase, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 08.07.2014 of OHIM concerning the exclusion of AF Steelcase from the tender procedure in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 08.07.2014 of OHIM concerning the exclusion of AF Steelcase from the tender procedure in question;

| — | annul all other related decisions of OHIM in relation to the tender procedure in question, including, where appropriate, those awarding the contract forming the subject-matter of the procedure in question, directing that the tender procedure be brought back to a stage prior to the exclusion of AF Steelcase in order that its tender be assessed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all other related decisions of OHIM in relation to the tender procedure in question, including, where appropriate, those awarding the contract forming the subject-matter of the procedure in question, directing that the tender procedure be brought back to a stage prior to the exclusion of AF Steelcase in order that its tender be assessed;

| — | in the alternative, should retroaction not be possible, order OHIM to pay the applicant EUR 20  380 by way of compensation for material damage caused to AF Steelcase by the exclusion decision. In addition, order OHIM to pay the applicant EUR 24  000 by way of compensation for non-material damage caused to AF Steelcase by the exclusion decision, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, should retroaction not be possible, order OHIM to pay the applicant EUR 20  380 by way of compensation for material damage caused to AF Steelcase by the exclusion decision. In addition, order OHIM to pay the applicant EUR 24  000 by way of compensation for non-material damage caused to AF Steelcase by the exclusion decision, and

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the exclusion of the tender submitted by the applicant in the public tender for the supply and installation of furniture and accessories (lot 1) and signage (lot 2) at OHIM’s head offices (OJEU 2014 S 023-035020, 1.2.2014).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons and change of criteria in the decision excluding AF Steelcase from the public tender in question.






  — | It is claimed in this regard that, apart from the insufficient reasoning in the exclusion decision, the administration changed the criteria which resulted in serious unfairness to the applicant, inasmuch as even though initially it was indicated that the ground for exclusion of the tender was that the amendment to box 20 rendered the tender incomplete, the arguments for the additional examination were different, being based on that reasoning. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons and change of criteria in the decision excluding AF Steelcase from the public tender in question.

—

It is claimed in this regard that, apart from the insufficient reasoning in the exclusion decision, the administration changed the criteria which resulted in serious unfairness to the applicant, inasmuch as even though initially it was indicated that the ground for exclusion of the tender was that the amendment to box 20 rendered the tender incomplete, the arguments for the additional examination were different, being based on that reasoning.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of sound administration and proportionality that govern the actions of the European administration.






  — | It is claimed in this regard that, in the present case, it was for OHIM, having found that Annex 20 was different in format, to have contacted AF Steelcase in order to clarify to what it corresponded, since OHIM was required to act diligently and prudently when examining and assessing the tender in question. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of sound administration and proportionality that govern the actions of the European administration.

—

It is claimed in this regard that, in the present case, it was for OHIM, having found that Annex 20 was different in format, to have contacted AF Steelcase in order to clarify to what it corresponded, since OHIM was required to act diligently and prudently when examining and assessing the tender in question.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of 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.






  — | It is claimed in this regard that OHIM failed to request the necessary clarifications from AF Steelcase pursuant to Article 158(3) of that Regulation, which clarifications would not, in this case, have affected the substantial terms of the tender. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of 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.

—

It is claimed in this regard that OHIM failed to request the necessary clarifications from AF Steelcase pursuant to Article 158(3) of that Regulation, which clarifications would not, in this case, have affected the substantial terms of the tender.

---