# C_2022451EN.01002201.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/22

---

Action brought on 13 October 2022 — Westpole Belgium and Unisys Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-640/22)

(2022/C 451/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Westpole Belgium (Vilvoorde, Belgium), Unisys Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: A. Vercruysse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | principally, annul the Parliament’s decisions:






  — | awarding Lot 7 of the tender entitled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS19-External Provision of IT Services’ to the first three tenderers listed below:






  — | Rank 1: OneCode, a group of economic operators led by the Belgian branch of NTT Data Spain S.L.U. and whose co-contractors are ARHS Developments S.A., SWORD Technologies S.A. and SOGETI Luxembourg S.A.; headquarters of the group of economic operators: B-1000 Brussels (Belgium), rue de Spa 8; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

—

principally, annul the Parliament’s decisions:

—

awarding Lot 7 of the tender entitled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS19-External Provision of IT Services’ to the first three tenderers listed below:

—

Rank 1: OneCode, a group of economic operators led by the Belgian branch of NTT Data Spain S.L.U. and whose co-contractors are ARHS Developments S.A., SWORD Technologies S.A. and SOGETI Luxembourg S.A.; headquarters of the group of economic operators: B-1000 Brussels (Belgium), rue de Spa 8;

| — | Rank 2: Consortium APC, a group of economic operators led by Atos Luxembourg PSF and whose co-contractors are PWC EU Services and Computer Resources International Luxembourg; headquarters of the group of economic operators: L-3364 Leudelange (Luxembourg), rue du Château d’Eau 12; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rank 2: Consortium APC, a group of economic operators led by Atos Luxembourg PSF and whose co-contractors are PWC EU Services and Computer Resources International Luxembourg; headquarters of the group of economic operators: L-3364 Leudelange (Luxembourg), rue du Château d’Eau 12;

| — | Rank 3: FACI2T Consortium, a group of economic operators led by CTG IT Solutions S.A. and whose co-contractors are Fujitsu Technology Solutions N.V./S.A., Netcompany Intrasoft S.A. and AXIANSEU — DIGITAL SOLUTIONS S.A., headquarters of the group of economic operators: L-8070 Bertrange (Luxembourg), rue des Mérovingiens 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rank 3: FACI2T Consortium, a group of economic operators led by CTG IT Solutions S.A. and whose co-contractors are Fujitsu Technology Solutions N.V./S.A., Netcompany Intrasoft S.A. and AXIANSEU — DIGITAL SOLUTIONS S.A., headquarters of the group of economic operators: L-8070 Bertrange (Luxembourg), rue des Mérovingiens 7;

| — | not awarding that tender to the consortium InfraExpert, of which the above mentioned applicants are members — a consortium created for the purpose of submitting a tender in the award procedure at issue, as well as signing and performing the framework contract and the specific agreements which may be signed following the award of the tender — decision refusing to award the contract of which the applicants were informed by registered letter of 3 October 2022, reference GEDA (2022) 27063; |
| --- | --- |

—

not awarding that tender to the consortium InfraExpert, of which the above mentioned applicants are members — a consortium created for the purpose of submitting a tender in the award procedure at issue, as well as signing and performing the framework contract and the specific agreements which may be signed following the award of the tender — decision refusing to award the contract of which the applicants were informed by registered letter of 3 October 2022, reference GEDA (2022) 27063;

| — | in the alternative and as an interim measure, if the Court considers that it should be given further information: |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative and as an interim measure, if the Court considers that it should be given further information:

| — | order the above mentioned defendant to produce the following documents:






  — | decision(s) concerning ‘the unusual circumstances related to a possible exclusion situation of several tenderers’, which are referred to in the defendant’s requests for extension of the validity period of the tenders in the award procedure at issue; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

order the above mentioned defendant to produce the following documents:

—

decision(s) concerning ‘the unusual circumstances related to a possible exclusion situation of several tenderers’, which are referred to in the defendant’s requests for extension of the validity period of the tenders in the award procedure at issue;

| — | sworn statement by the OneCode consortium and/or the Belgian branch of NTT Data Spain S.L.U.; |
| --- | --- |

—

sworn statement by the OneCode consortium and/or the Belgian branch of NTT Data Spain S.L.U.;

| — | reasons for the exclusion of EVERIS S.L.U. from Lots 3 and 8 of the tender at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

reasons for the exclusion of EVERIS S.L.U. from Lots 3 and 8 of the tender at issue;

| — | answer of the successful tenderers for the contract at issue to Part C ‘Technical evaluation questionnaire’ of the technical specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

answer of the successful tenderers for the contract at issue to Part C ‘Technical evaluation questionnaire’ of the technical specifications;

| — | answers (questionnaire + Excel price table) of the successful tenderers to Annex II to the technical specifications ‘Price evaluation form (Lots 1-10)’ — or, at the very least, the relevant extracts for Lot 7. |
| --- | --- |

—

answers (questionnaire + Excel price table) of the successful tenderers to Annex II to the technical specifications ‘Price evaluation form (Lots 1-10)’ — or, at the very least, the relevant extracts for Lot 7.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging likely infringement of Articles 136 and 140 of Regulation 2018/1046. (1) The applicants submit that the defendant failed to take account of the administrative and judicial decisions made in relation to a member of the consortium that was the highest-ranked tenderer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging likely infringement of Articles 136 and 140 of Regulation 2018/1046. (1) The applicants submit that the defendant failed to take account of the administrative and judicial decisions made in relation to a member of the consortium that was the highest-ranked tenderer.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 160 of Regulation 2018/1046. The applicants submit that, by failing to exclude at least one abnormally low tender, the defendant unlawfully rejected the applicants’ tender. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 160 of Regulation 2018/1046. The applicants submit that, by failing to exclude at least one abnormally low tender, the defendant unlawfully rejected the applicants’ tender.

| 3. | Third plea in law, relating to reservations concerning the technical evaluation and alleging a possible infringement of Article 160 of Regulation 2018/1046 in that regard. The applicants submit, in particular, that the technical evaluation of the tenders, which accounts for 70 % of the weighting of the award criteria, is based too heavily on subjective assessments for the General Court to be able to carry out a reasonable review. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, relating to reservations concerning the technical evaluation and alleging a possible infringement of Article 160 of Regulation 2018/1046 in that regard. The applicants submit, in particular, that the technical evaluation of the tenders, which accounts for 70 % of the weighting of the award criteria, is based too heavily on subjective assessments for the General Court to be able to carry out a reasonable review.

---

(1)  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).

---