# C_2015311EN.01004901.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/49

---

Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Papapanagiotou v Parlement

(Case T-351/15)

(2015/C 311/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Papapanagiotou AVEEA (Serres, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Decision D(2015)12887 of 27 April 2015 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics, whereby the tender submitted by the applicant for Lots 1, 2 and 4 of tendering procedure ‘Office Furniture’ No INLO.AO-2012-017-LUX-UAGBI-02 ‘for the acquisition of standard, executive and high-end office furniture and accessories’ was rejected and with which the Director-General informed the applicant that, for the evaluation of all the tenders in the above tender procedure, he had not taken into consideration one of the award criteria specified in the tender documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision D(2015)12887 of 27 April 2015 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics, whereby the tender submitted by the applicant for Lots 1, 2 and 4 of tendering procedure ‘Office Furniture’ No INLO.AO-2012-017-LUX-UAGBI-02 ‘for the acquisition of standard, executive and high-end office furniture and accessories’ was rejected and with which the Director-General informed the applicant that, for the evaluation of all the tenders in the above tender procedure, he had not taken into consideration one of the award criteria specified in the tender documents;

‘for the acquisition of standard, executive and high-end office furniture and accessories’

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s 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 contested decision is unlawful, due to the exclusion of the ‘construction (resistance to breakage, abrasion, scratching and decolouration)’ award subcriterion during the tender procedure, which violates the tender specifications, Articles 110(1) and 113(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union (‘the Financial Regulation’) and the general principles of equal treatment and transparency. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful, due to the exclusion of the ‘construction (resistance to breakage, abrasion, scratching and decolouration)’ award subcriterion during the tender procedure, which violates the tender specifications, Articles 110(1) and 113(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union (‘the Financial Regulation’) and the general principles of equal treatment and transparency.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure of the contracting authority to state reasons, namely the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tenders, in violation of Article 113(2) of the Financial Regulation, Article 161(3) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (‘Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation’), Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFUE. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure of the contracting authority to state reasons, namely the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tenders, in violation of Article 113(2) of the Financial Regulation, Article 161(3) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (‘Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation’), Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFUE.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of transparency according to Article 102 of the Financial Regulation and Article 15(3) TFUE, as the contracting authority failed to provide information and evidence on whether the samples provided by the tenders for the re-evaluation of the tenders were identical to the samples originally evaluated in the first evaluation procedure that was subsequently cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of transparency according to Article 102 of the Financial Regulation and Article 15(3) TFUE, as the contracting authority failed to provide information and evidence on whether the samples provided by the tenders for the re-evaluation of the tenders were identical to the samples originally evaluated in the first evaluation procedure that was subsequently cancelled.

---