# C_2009069EN.01004301.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/43

---

Action brought on 30 December 2008 — Carpent Languages v Commission

(Case T-582/08)

(2009/C 69/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carpent Languages SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, annul the decision to reject the applicant's tender; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, annul the decision to reject the applicant's tender;

| — | Annul the decision awarding the contract to ADIE TECHNICS SPRL; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision awarding the contract to ADIE TECHNICS SPRL;

| — | In the alternative, in the event that the Court does not grant the application for annulment of the contested decision, order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 200 000 (two hundred thousand Euros) as compensation for the applicant's pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, in the event that the Court does not grant the application for annulment of the contested decision, order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 200 000 (two hundred thousand Euros) as compensation for the applicant's pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission to reject its tender made in respect of the call for tenders for lot No 4 of the contract notice ‘Multiple framework contracts for meeting and conference organisation services’ (OJ 2008 S 58-77561), and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer. The applicant also seeks compensation for the loss allegedly caused by the contested decision.

In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law, alleging:

| — | breach of the duty to state reasons, since the Commission stated neither the number of points obtained by the successful tenderer nor the advantages of the successful tender over that of the applicant; furthermore, the Commission did not inform the applicant which of the two case studies which it submitted did not obtain a sufficient number of points; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the duty to state reasons, since the Commission stated neither the number of points obtained by the successful tenderer nor the advantages of the successful tender over that of the applicant; furthermore, the Commission did not inform the applicant which of the two case studies which it submitted did not obtain a sufficient number of points;

| — | a manifest error of assessment, in that the Evaluation Committee attributed a score of less than 70 points to one of the case studies submitted by the applicant despite the fact that the applicant set out in detail, in accordance with the specifications, the approach which it would have taken to supply the services required, the means which it would have allocated to the different tasks, the work schedule and an estimate of the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

a manifest error of assessment, in that the Evaluation Committee attributed a score of less than 70 points to one of the case studies submitted by the applicant despite the fact that the applicant set out in detail, in accordance with the specifications, the approach which it would have taken to supply the services required, the means which it would have allocated to the different tasks, the work schedule and an estimate of the costs;

| — | a breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as defined in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation, since the successful tenderer did not fulfil the selection criteria in respect of technical capacity. |
| --- | --- |

—

a breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as defined in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation, since the successful tenderer did not fulfil the selection criteria in respect of technical capacity.

---