# C_2014462EN.01002701.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/27 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 13 October 2014 — PRIMA v Commission

(Case T-722/14)

(2014/C 462/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Yakor Sergeyev Ruskov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 by which the applicant’s bid made in the context of public procurement procedure PO/2013 13/SOF relating to support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 by which the performance of the contract was awarded to another tenderer, and annul all the subsequent decisions relating to the conclusion of a contract for the performance of the contract, including the decision of the European Commission of 12 September 2014; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to provide information
—
the contracting authority provided the information requested by PRIMA relating to the characteristics of the successful bid, but failed to provide information relating to the relative advantages of that bid. | — | the contracting authority provided the information requested by PRIMA relating to the characteristics of the successful bid, but failed to provide information relating to the relative advantages of that bid. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the contracting authority provided the information requested by PRIMA relating to the characteristics of the successful bid, but failed to provide information relating to the relative advantages of that bid. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the award criteria
—
the award criteria created by the contracting authority were not applied correctly and objectively, as a result of which the marks awarded for the fulfilment of those criteria are not relevant; it follows that equal access and treatment of all the tenderers have not been ensured. | — | the award criteria created by the contracting authority were not applied correctly and objectively, as a result of which the marks awarded for the fulfilment of those criteria are not relevant; it follows that equal access and treatment of all the tenderers have not been ensured. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the award criteria created by the contracting authority were not applied correctly and objectively, as a result of which the marks awarded for the fulfilment of those criteria are not relevant; it follows that equal access and treatment of all the tenderers have not been ensured. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles governing the award of public contracts
—
the decision to award the contract was taken after the date of the first decision, by which PRIMA’s bid was rejected; —
the contracting authority failed to inform PRIMA about that decision, which is an infringement of the principles of transparency and equality of participants to the procedure; —
the failure to provide the information concerning that decision considerably adversely affected PRIMA’s rights of defence. | — | the decision to award the contract was taken after the date of the first decision, by which PRIMA’s bid was rejected; | — | the contracting authority failed to inform PRIMA about that decision, which is an infringement of the principles of transparency and equality of participants to the procedure; | — | the failure to provide the information concerning that decision considerably adversely affected PRIMA’s rights of defence. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the decision to award the contract was taken after the date of the first decision, by which PRIMA’s bid was rejected; | | | | | | |
| — | the contracting authority failed to inform PRIMA about that decision, which is an infringement of the principles of transparency and equality of participants to the procedure; | | | | | | |
| — | the failure to provide the information concerning that decision considerably adversely affected PRIMA’s rights of defence. | | | | | | |

---