# C_2020371EN.01002501.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/25

---

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — ML v Commission

(Case T-567/20)

(2020/C 371/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ML (represented by: L. Levi and V. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2020 not to accept the applicant’s application in call for tender no [confidential] (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2020 not to accept the applicant’s application in call for tender no [confidential] (1);

| — | order compensation for the harm suffered consisting in the loss of opportunity to have its tender evaluated and to be awarded the contract, estimated at EUR 1 500 000 over a period of ten years; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation for the harm suffered consisting in the loss of opportunity to have its tender evaluated and to be awarded the contract, estimated at EUR 1 500 000 over a period of ten years;

| — | order the symbolic payment of one euro by way of damages, subject to increase; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the symbolic payment of one euro by way of damages, subject to increase;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant considers in that regard that the statement of reasons for the contested decision is inadequate, in particular in relation to the criterion of economic and financial capacity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant considers in that regard that the statement of reasons for the contested decision is inadequate, in particular in relation to the criterion of economic and financial capacity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the tender specifications and manifest error of assessment. According to the contested decision, the applicant met neither the criteria relating to economic and financial capacity nor those relating to technical and professional capacity. The applicant considers, first, that the letter of guarantee it submitted should have led the defendant to conclude that the criterion of economic and financial capacity was met. Second, as regards the criterion of technical and professional capacity, the applicant considers that it met the criterion requiring it to justify the management of at least two operations with the label [confidential] or any other equivalent label. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the tender specifications and manifest error of assessment. According to the contested decision, the applicant met neither the criteria relating to economic and financial capacity nor those relating to technical and professional capacity. The applicant considers, first, that the letter of guarantee it submitted should have led the defendant to conclude that the criterion of economic and financial capacity was met. Second, as regards the criterion of technical and professional capacity, the applicant considers that it met the criterion requiring it to justify the management of at least two operations with the label [confidential] or any other equivalent label.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringement of the principle of proportionality and point 18.7 of Annex I to the Financial Regulation (2). According to the applicant, the defendant based its decision on information that was not contained in the tender documents and on which it did not allow it to comment before drawing adverse consequences from it. Moreover, the applicant adds that, if the defendant considered that the guarantor company did not meet the applicable selection criteria, it should not have rejected the tender as a whole, but should have required it to be replaced. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringement of the principle of proportionality and point 18.7 of Annex I to the Financial Regulation (2). According to the applicant, the defendant based its decision on information that was not contained in the tender documents and on which it did not allow it to comment before drawing adverse consequences from it. Moreover, the applicant adds that, if the defendant considered that the guarantor company did not meet the applicable selection criteria, it should not have rejected the tender as a whole, but should have required it to be replaced.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

---