# C_2015262EN.01003601.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/36

---

Action brought on 22 June 2015 — GSA and SGI Security v Parliament

(Case T-321/15)

(2015/C 262/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) (Rome, Italy) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI Security) (Bierges, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Parliament’s decision notified on 12 June 2015 declaring non-compliant the tender submitted by Gruppo Servizi Associati s.p.a. and Security Guardian’s Institute s.a. in respect of the tendering procedure for service contract EP/DGSAFE/UIB/SER/2014-014 for the provision of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament's site in Brussels, and its decision to award the contract to another tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Parliament’s decision notified on 12 June 2015 declaring non-compliant the tender submitted by Gruppo Servizi Associati s.p.a. and Security Guardian’s Institute s.a. in respect of the tendering procedure for service contract EP/DGSAFE/UIB/SER/2014-014 for the provision of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament's site in Brussels, and its decision to award the contract to another tenderer;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, in so far as the Parliament unjustifiably required all of the members of the consortium to hold an authorisation pursuant to the Law of 10 April 1990 regulating private and special security services, thereby imposing the requirement on members of the consortium who would not provide services subject to that law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, in so far as the Parliament unjustifiably required all of the members of the consortium to hold an authorisation pursuant to the Law of 10 April 1990 regulating private and special security services, thereby imposing the requirement on members of the consortium who would not provide services subject to that law.

| 2. | Second plea, submitted in the alternative, alleging infringement of the freedom to provide services and the underlying principles of equal treatment and proportionality, in so far as the requirement to hold an authorisation pursuant to the Law of 10 April 1990 made it excessively difficult, or even impossible, for a company which provides a service that is not subject to that law to participate in the contract award procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, submitted in the alternative, alleging infringement of the freedom to provide services and the underlying principles of equal treatment and proportionality, in so far as the requirement to hold an authorisation pursuant to the Law of 10 April 1990 made it excessively difficult, or even impossible, for a company which provides a service that is not subject to that law to participate in the contract award procedure.

---