# C_2020297EN.01004101.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/41

---

Action brought on 27 June 2020 — Global Translation Solutions v Commission

(Case T-404/20)

(2020/C 297/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Translation Solutions ltd. (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: C. Mifsud-Bonnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, and all related decisions of the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, and all related decisions of the defendant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that they are founded on a serious and manifest error of assessment in the formulation of the standard marking grid for the evaluation of the revision test. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that they are founded on a serious and manifest error of assessment in the formulation of the standard marking grid for the evaluation of the revision test.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the formulation of the standard marking grid was in breach of the law, inter alia Article 160(1) the Financial Regulation, (1) and contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement inter alia equal treatment and transparency. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the formulation of the standard marking grid was in breach of the law, inter alia Article 160(1) the Financial Regulation, (1) and contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement inter alia equal treatment and transparency.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant has failed to state reasons, as required by Union law and CJEU case-law, for its decision to reject the applicant’s bid. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant has failed to state reasons, as required by Union law and CJEU case-law, for its decision to reject the applicant’s bid.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant’s conduct throughout the correspondence exchanged with the applicant after 17 April 2020, in particular, with respect to its explanations on the standard marking grid and the ‘pre-defined errors’, was contrary to general principles of due diligence, good administration and public procurement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant’s conduct throughout the correspondence exchanged with the applicant after 17 April 2020, in particular, with respect to its explanations on the standard marking grid and the ‘pre-defined errors’, was contrary to general principles of due diligence, good administration and public procurement.

---

(1)  Regulation 2018/1046 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).

---