# C_2012073EN.01002801.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/28

---

Action brought on 19 December 2011 — Dimension Data Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-650/11)

2012/C 73/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dimension Data Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Levert and M. Velghe, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament, notified to the applicant by email of 18 October 2011, to reject the applicant’s tender for lot No 1 of the contract PE-ITEC-DIT-ITIM-TELSIS and to award lot No 1 of that contract to the company BT Belgique; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament, notified to the applicant by email of 18 October 2011, to reject the applicant’s tender for lot No 1 of the contract PE-ITEC-DIT-ITIM-TELSIS and to award lot No 1 of that contract to the company BT Belgique;

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

—

order the European 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to state the reasons for the contested decision as the Parliament did not communicate any characteristics of the successful tender to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state the reasons for the contested decision as the Parliament did not communicate any characteristics of the successful tender to the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation of transparency which is incumbent on the Parliament under Articles 89, 92, 97 and 100 of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 138 of the Implementing Rules (2) as the Parliament did not give a full, clear and precise definition of the criterion for evaluating the price of the tenders. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation of transparency which is incumbent on the Parliament under Articles 89, 92, 97 and 100 of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 138 of the Implementing Rules (2) as the Parliament did not give a full, clear and precise definition of the criterion for evaluating the price of the tenders.

1

2

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in describing the criteria for evaluating the quality of the tenders, infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of Article 138(2) of the Implementing Rules, as the contracting authority took into consideration an evaluation criterion which is not designed to identify the tender which is most economically advantageous. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in describing the criteria for evaluating the quality of the tenders, infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of Article 138(2) of the Implementing Rules, as the contracting authority took into consideration an evaluation criterion which is not designed to identify the tender which is most economically advantageous.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in respect of the quality of the financial details and infringement of Article 139 of the Implementing Rules in the award of lot No 1 of the disputed contract to the company BT Belgique since its tender is unusually low, with the result that it should be rejected by the Parliament or, failing that, be regarded as not complying with the specifications. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in respect of the quality of the financial details and infringement of Article 139 of the Implementing Rules in the award of lot No 1 of the disputed contract to the company BT Belgique since its tender is unusually low, with the result that it should be rejected by the Parliament or, failing that, be regarded as not complying with the specifications.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)

2

---