# C_2012343EN.01001801.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/18

---

Action brought on 11 September 2012 — Intrasoft International v Commission

(Case T-403/12)

2012/C 343/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2012 (ref.: RH(2012)3471), as well as the implicit rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 10 August 2012 against such decision, so that the applicant will be allowed to participate in the subsequent stages of the tender; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2012 (ref.: RH(2012)3471), as well as the implicit rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 10 August 2012 against such decision, so that the applicant will be allowed to participate in the subsequent stages of the tender;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present application.

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 infringement of the terms of reference and the principle of good administration. More specifically, the applicant sustains that the additional information-clarifications given by the contracting authority to all tenderers following the tender procedure completed the terms of reference, formed part of the legal framework that governs the tender in question and subsequently was binding on all parties, the contracting authority included. Such terms have in the case at hand been infringed by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the terms of reference and the principle of good administration. More specifically, the applicant sustains that the additional information-clarifications given by the contracting authority to all tenderers following the tender procedure completed the terms of reference, formed part of the legal framework that governs the tender in question and subsequently was binding on all parties, the contracting authority included. Such terms have in the case at hand been infringed by the defendant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 94 of the Financial Regulation (1), as:






  — | The applicant was excluded from the tendering procedure on the ground of conflict of interest without having been given the opportunity to prove and support evidence that there was not such a case; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 94 of the Financial Regulation (1), as:

1

—

The applicant was excluded from the tendering procedure on the ground of conflict of interest without having been given the opportunity to prove and support evidence that there was not such a case;

| — | The administration failed to assess and substantiate that the previous involvement of the applicant in another tender could have an impact on the tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

—

The administration failed to assess and substantiate that the previous involvement of the applicant in another tender could have an impact on the tender in question.

---

(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)

1

---