# C_2015205EN.01004101.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/41

---

Action brought on 6 May 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament

(Case T-224/15)

(2015/C 205/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision No 103299 of 27 April 2015 of the Directorate General for Infrastructures and Logistics of the European Parliament by which the applicants’ bid for lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ submitted on 29 September 2014 in respect of the public procurement procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4 concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg was rejected and the decision awarding the contract in question to another tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision No 103299 of 27 April 2015 of the Directorate General for Infrastructures and Logistics of the European Parliament by which the applicants’ bid for lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ submitted on 29 September 2014 in respect of the public procurement procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4 concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg was rejected and the decision awarding the contract in question to another tenderer;

| — | Order the production of the following documents:






  — | the report of the evaluation committee to which the defendant referred in its communication No 101690 of 27 February 2015; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Order the production of the following documents:

—

the report of the evaluation committee to which the defendant referred in its communication No 101690 of 27 February 2015; and

| — | the documents in the procurement file in which the contacts between the Parliament and the tenderers were recorded in accordance with Article 160(4) 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 and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

the documents in the procurement file in which the contacts between the Parliament and the tenderers were recorded in accordance with Article 160(4) 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 and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002;

| — | 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the selection criteria and, more precisely, the criteria concerning financial and economic standing and technical and professional standing. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the selection criteria and, more precisely, the criteria concerning financial and economic standing and technical and professional standing.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the award criteria. The applicants submit that, in so far as it proves to be the case that, when comparing the successful tenderer’s bid and the bids submitted by the other tenderers, that bid is abnormally low, the defendant ought to have rejected the bid and awarded the contract to the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the award criteria. The applicants submit that, in so far as it proves to be the case that, when comparing the successful tenderer’s bid and the bids submitted by the other tenderers, that bid is abnormally low, the defendant ought to have rejected the bid and awarded the contract to the applicants.

---