# C_2021278EN.01006301.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/63

---

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Alliance française de Bruxelles-Europe and Others v Commission

(Case T-285/21)

(2021/C 278/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alliance française de Bruxelles-Europe (Brussels, Belgium) and seven other applicants (represented by: E. van Nuffel d'Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | order, until the order terminating the procedure for interim relief is issued, the suspension of the operation of the European Commission’s decision to award lot 4 (French language) of the contract relating to Framework Contracts on Language Training for the Institutions, Bodies and Agencies of the European Union (No HR/2020/OP/0014), in first place, to the consortium CLL Centre de Langues — Allingua and, in second place, to the consortium Alliance Europe Multilingue, comprised of the applicants, and adopt any other necessary measure, including indicating the effect of that suspension on any contract concluded in breach of the standstill period laid down by Article 175 of the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order, until the order terminating the procedure for interim relief is issued, the suspension of the operation of the European Commission’s decision to award lot 4 (French language) of the contract relating to Framework Contracts on Language Training for the Institutions, Bodies and Agencies of the European Union (No HR/2020/OP/0014), in first place, to the consortium CLL Centre de Langues — Allingua and, in second place, to the consortium Alliance Europe Multilingue, comprised of the applicants, and adopt any other necessary measure, including indicating the effect of that suspension on any contract concluded in breach of the standstill period laid down by Article 175 of the Financial Regulation;

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

—

order the European 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 a failure to provide sufficient reasons, in breach of Article 170(3) of the Financial Regulation. In that regard, the applicants claim that an examination of the reasons provided concerning the qualities of the tender submitted by the applicants and the characteristics and advantages of the tender of the highest-ranked tenderer does not show any correlation between the assessment and the rating awarded, and that it is therefore not possible to understand why the applicants’ tender is rated lower than the tender of the highest-ranked tenderer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to provide sufficient reasons, in breach of Article 170(3) of the Financial Regulation. In that regard, the applicants claim that an examination of the reasons provided concerning the qualities of the tender submitted by the applicants and the characteristics and advantages of the tender of the highest-ranked tenderer does not show any correlation between the assessment and the rating awarded, and that it is therefore not possible to understand why the applicants’ tender is rated lower than the tender of the highest-ranked tenderer.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to exercise its discretion effectively in that the European Commission refused to weigh up parts of the technical proposal of the applicants’ tender which were accessible via a coded hypertext link incorporated into their tender, on the ground that those parts could have been submitted or modified after the deadline for submitting tenders had expired, without determining specifically whether there was such a risk. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to exercise its discretion effectively in that the European Commission refused to weigh up parts of the technical proposal of the applicants’ tender which were accessible via a coded hypertext link incorporated into their tender, on the ground that those parts could have been submitted or modified after the deadline for submitting tenders had expired, without determining specifically whether there was such a risk.

| 3. | Third plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging a manifest failure of assessment, in that there is no clear correlation between the assessment of the intrinsic qualities of the tender submitted by the applicants and the rating assigned to the quality criteria. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging a manifest failure of assessment, in that there is no clear correlation between the assessment of the intrinsic qualities of the tender submitted by the applicants and the rating assigned to the quality criteria.

---