# C_2016098EN.01004502.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/45

---

Action brought on 15 December 2015 — Blaž Jamnik and Blaž v Parliament

(Case T-726/15)

(2016/C 098/60)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Jožica Blaž Jamnik (Ljubljana, Slovenia) and Brina Blaž (Ljubljana) (represented by: D. Mihevc, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that the selection of the tenderer in the procedure INLO.AO-2013-051-LUX-UGIMBI-06 is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the selection of the tenderer in the procedure INLO.AO-2013-051-LUX-UGIMBI-06 is unlawful;

| — | annul the selection of the tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the selection of the tenderer;

| — | select the applicants as the best tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

select the applicants as the best tenderer;

| — | in the alternative, award the applicants damages amounting to EUR 3 852 384,60 in the event that they are not selected as the best tenderer in the procedure INLO.AO-2013-051-LUX-UGIMBI-06; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, award the applicants damages amounting to EUR 3 852 384,60 in the event that they are not selected as the best tenderer in the procedure INLO.AO-2013-051-LUX-UGIMBI-06;

| — | reimburse the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reimburse the applicants’ 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 in law: infringement of Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1)

  According to the applicants, the selection of the best tenderer was made in breach of Article 113 of the regulation in question, since the predetermined criteria set out in the tender specifications were not taken into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1)

1

According to the applicants, the selection of the best tenderer was made in breach of Article 113 of the regulation in question, since the predetermined criteria set out in the tender specifications were not taken into consideration.

| 2. | Second plea in law: the selection procedure was conducted unlawfully
  In that regard, the applicants assert that none of the plans, graphic documentation and statistical calculations which they appended to their tender was examined, since they were not forwarded by the office in Ljubljana for the decision in Luxembourg. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: the selection procedure was conducted unlawfully

In that regard, the applicants assert that none of the plans, graphic documentation and statistical calculations which they appended to their tender was examined, since they were not forwarded by the office in Ljubljana for the decision in Luxembourg.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

1

---