# C_2011290EN.01001301.xml

| 1.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/13

---

Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Computer Resources v Publications Office

(Case T-422/11)

2011/C 290/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Computer Resources International (Dommeldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Publications Office of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 22 July 2011, to reject the offers submitted by the applicant in the framework of the open tender No AO 10340 ‘Computing services — software development, maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications’ (OJ 2011/S 66-106099); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 22 July 2011, to reject the offers submitted by the applicant in the framework of the open tender No AO 10340 ‘Computing services — software development, maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications’ (OJ 2011/S 66-106099); and

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

—

Order the defendant 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant disregarded an essential formal requirement, as the contested decision does not contain any reasoning as far as the particular grounds that the awarding authority took into account when concluding that the offer of the applicant was abnormally low. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant disregarded an essential formal requirement, as the contested decision does not contain any reasoning as far as the particular grounds that the awarding authority took into account when concluding that the offer of the applicant was abnormally low.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicable procedure, as enshrined in Article 139 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicable procedure, as enshrined in Article 139 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 (1).

1

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has made a misuse of procedure or issued its decision with no proper legal basis or at least erred as far as its reasoning is concerned, as the clarifications given by the applicant were not understood and remained unanswered. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has made a misuse of procedure or issued its decision with no proper legal basis or at least erred as far as its reasoning is concerned, as the clarifications given by the applicant were not understood and remained unanswered.

---

(1)  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).

1

---