# C_2019004EN.01003502.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/35

---

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT

(Case T-640/18)

(2019/C 4/47)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft (Intercontact Budapest Kft) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: É. Subasicz, lawyer)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Primarily, declare whether the evaluation points awarded to the various tenderers are realistic on the basis of a comparison of the tenders submitted, and whether they comply with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency; |
| --- | --- |

—

Primarily, declare whether the evaluation points awarded to the various tenderers are realistic on the basis of a comparison of the tenders submitted, and whether they comply with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency;

| — | In the alternative, declare that the defendant’s legal interpretation is erroneous with regard to Article 113(3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, and that the publication of the prices of the tenders in the public procurement procedure is not contrary to the regulation invoked; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, declare that the defendant’s legal interpretation is erroneous with regard to Article 113(3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, and that the publication of the prices of the tenders in the public procurement procedure is not contrary to the regulation invoked;

| — | In the further alternative, annul the decision reached by the defendant in respect of Lot 12 of Procedure FL/FIN17, together with the administrative procedure in so far as it relates to that lot; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the further alternative, annul the decision reached by the defendant in respect of Lot 12 of Procedure FL/FIN17, together with the administrative procedure in so far as it relates to that lot;

| — | In the even further alternative, identify the procedural act (legal act in force) in the public procurement procedure, which is the subject matter of the appeal, from the notification of which the period for appeal laid down in Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union begins to run. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the even further alternative, identify the procedural act (legal act in force) in the public procurement procedure, which is the subject matter of the appeal, from the notification of which the period for appeal laid down in Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union begins to run.

| — | 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, inasmuch as the defendant applied different evaluation criteria to the tenderers in the public procurement procedures. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, inasmuch as the defendant applied different evaluation criteria to the tenderers in the public procurement procedures. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power in so far as the defendant failed to send the applicant the information that it sought in the public procurement procedures. (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power in so far as the defendant failed to send the applicant the information that it sought in the public procurement procedures. (2)

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the directive on public procurement by failing to give notice of the time limit for review, thus limiting the possibility of review. (3) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the directive on public procurement by failing to give notice of the time limit for review, thus limiting the possibility of review. (3)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant impeded the exercise of the applicant’s right to bring an appeal against the CdT. (4) |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant impeded the exercise of the applicant’s right to bring an appeal against the CdT. (4)

---

(1)  Recitals 1 and 90 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2)  Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(3)  Annex V, Part D, paragraph 16 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(4)  Article 263, sixth paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---