# C_2012331EN.01003001.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/30

---

Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Alfastar Benelux v Council

(Case T-394/12)

(2012/C 331/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alfastar Benelux SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open call for tenders UCA-218-07 for the provision of technical maintenance — help desk and on-site intervention services for the PC’s printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ/S 2008/S 91-122796), communicated afresh to the applicant by registered letter dated 18 June 2012, following the annulment of the previous award decision dated 1 December 2008 by the General Court in its judgment in case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open call for tenders UCA-218-07 for the provision of technical maintenance — help desk and on-site intervention services for the PC’s printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ/S 2008/S 91-122796), communicated afresh to the applicant by registered letter dated 18 June 2012, following the annulment of the previous award decision dated 1 December 2008 by the General Court in its judgment in case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account if the tendering procedure in question; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account if the tendering procedure in question; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the tender specification since the use of the movers to execute technical assistance tasks as envisaged in the winning tender is contrary to such specifications; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the tender specification since the use of the movers to execute technical assistance tasks as envisaged in the winning tender is contrary to such specifications;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by multiple manifest errors of assessment especially concerning the certification of the winning tenderer, the qualifications of the personnel of the winning tenderer as opposed to those of the applicant, the knowledge transfer marks, the evaluation of the number of staff proposed by the tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by multiple manifest errors of assessment especially concerning the certification of the winning tenderer, the qualifications of the personnel of the winning tenderer as opposed to those of the applicant, the knowledge transfer marks, the evaluation of the number of staff proposed by the tenderers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the evaluation committee mixed selection and award criteria and phases of the tendering procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the evaluation committee mixed selection and award criteria and phases of the tendering procedure.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that there exist various inconsistencies and inaccurate information in the call for tenders. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that there exist various inconsistencies and inaccurate information in the call for tenders.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not comply with the provision of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1), especially with regard to the verification of selection criteria. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not comply with the provision of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1), especially with regard to the verification of selection criteria.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

---