# C_2016048EN.01001101.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/11

---

Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alain Laurent Brouillard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-420/13, Brouillard v Court of Justice

(Case C-590/15 P)

(2016/C 048/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (represented by: P. Vande Casteele, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare the appeal well-founded and set aside the judgment of 14 September 2015 (T-420/13); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal well-founded and set aside the judgment of 14 September 2015 (T-420/13);

| — | annul the letters of 5 June 2013 in which the Court of Justice of the European Union invited IDEST Communication SA, first, to submit bids in the context of a negotiated tender procedure relating to the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into French (OJ 2013/S 47-075037) and, second, to confirm that the appellant would not be engaged in the provision of the services required under the contract. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the letters of 5 June 2013 in which the Court of Justice of the European Union invited IDEST Communication SA, first, to submit bids in the context of a negotiated tender procedure relating to the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into French (OJ 2013/S 47-075037) and, second, to confirm that the appellant would not be engaged in the provision of the services required under the contract.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | In connection with the provision of translation services, the Court of Justice of the European Union submitted that the appellant could not be accepted as a subcontractor of a company invited to tender, on the ground that ‘...the qualification [which he had obtained] from the University of Poitiers (a vocational master’s degree in law, economics and management, private law, lawyer-linguist specialism), even though it [was] a level 2 Master’s Degree, [did] not demonstrate full legal training’ and that ‘that assessment [was] consistent with an established practice of the French translation unit which does not regard the “lawyer-linguist” training offered by the University of Poitiers (Master’s Degree 2) as being legal training which satisfies the requirements set out in paragraph III.2.1 of the contract notice’, it being made clear that ‘[t]he method of obtaining the degree (“VAE”, or validation of acquired experience) [had] had no effect on the assessment ...’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In connection with the provision of translation services, the Court of Justice of the European Union submitted that the appellant could not be accepted as a subcontractor of a company invited to tender, on the ground that ‘...the qualification [which he had obtained] from the University of Poitiers (a vocational master’s degree in law, economics and management, private law, lawyer-linguist specialism), even though it [was] a level 2 Master’s Degree, [did] not demonstrate full legal training’ and that ‘that assessment [was] consistent with an established practice of the French translation unit which does not regard the “lawyer-linguist” training offered by the University of Poitiers (Master’s Degree 2) as being legal training which satisfies the requirements set out in paragraph III.2.1 of the contract notice’, it being made clear that ‘[t]he method of obtaining the degree (“VAE”, or validation of acquired experience) [had] had no effect on the assessment ...’.

| 2. | The appellant claims that there has been an infringement of the general principles of equality, freedom of establishment, free movement of workers and freedom to provide services, the principle of proportionality, Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 51 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 45, 49, 51, 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the right to education and instruction, and an error in law and a misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The appellant claims that there has been an infringement of the general principles of equality, freedom of establishment, free movement of workers and freedom to provide services, the principle of proportionality, Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 51 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 45, 49, 51, 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the right to education and instruction, and an error in law and a misuse of power.

| 3. | The General Court erred in law in concluding that there was no ‘interference’ with the rights and freedoms referred to above. The error in law is all the more apparent given that the appellant has qualifications which are inherently, indeed essentially, intended to enable him to provide legal translation services. In addition, the Court of Justice at the very least ‘interfered’ with the appellant’s right to benefit from the studies undertaken as an academic lawyer and translator. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erred in law in concluding that there was no ‘interference’ with the rights and freedoms referred to above. The error in law is all the more apparent given that the appellant has qualifications which are inherently, indeed essentially, intended to enable him to provide legal translation services. In addition, the Court of Justice at the very least ‘interfered’ with the appellant’s right to benefit from the studies undertaken as an academic lawyer and translator.

| 4. | The General Court also erred in law and misconstrued EU law in holding that the contracting authority was not bound by an obligation to make a comparison, on the ground that Directive 2005/36 (1) was not applicable and that therefore ‘the appellant could not rely on the case-law concerning the recognition of diplomas in order to assert, in essence, that the Court of Justice should have taken into account the appellant’s other qualifications and experience’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The General Court also erred in law and misconstrued EU law in holding that the contracting authority was not bound by an obligation to make a comparison, on the ground that Directive 2005/36 (1) was not applicable and that therefore ‘the appellant could not rely on the case-law concerning the recognition of diplomas in order to assert, in essence, that the Court of Justice should have taken into account the appellant’s other qualifications and experience’.

1

| 5. | The General Court made another error in law in holding that the contracting authority was entitled to disregard the master’s degree in law (five years of post-Baccalauréat studies) awarded in France ‘in view of the various diplomas available in Belgium and France before and after the 2004 reform harmonising higher education diplomas in Europe’. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The General Court made another error in law in holding that the contracting authority was entitled to disregard the master’s degree in law (five years of post-Baccalauréat studies) awarded in France ‘in view of the various diplomas available in Belgium and France before and after the 2004 reform harmonising higher education diplomas in Europe’.

| 6. | The infringement of the fundamental freedoms and general principles of EU law referred to above, taken individually or in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, also stem from the fact that the decision to exclude the appellant was adopted without taking into consideration all of his diplomas, certificates and other qualifications and his relevant professional experience, and without comparing the academic and professional qualifications demonstrated by the appellant with those required by the tendering specifications. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The infringement of the fundamental freedoms and general principles of EU law referred to above, taken individually or in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, also stem from the fact that the decision to exclude the appellant was adopted without taking into consideration all of his diplomas, certificates and other qualifications and his relevant professional experience, and without comparing the academic and professional qualifications demonstrated by the appellant with those required by the tendering specifications.

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

1

---