# C_2016118EN.01004002.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/40

---

Action brought on 16 February 2016 — Sartour v Parliament

(Case T-78/16)

(2016/C 118/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sartour (Beveren, Belgium) (represented by: M. Cherchi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the present action admissible and well founded. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present action admissible and well founded.

Consequently:

| — | Annul the Parliament’s decision, set out in the letter of 18 December 2015, by which it informed the applicant of the rejection of its tender submitted under public procurement procedure No 06B40/2015/M073 to the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building occupied by the European Parliament in Brussels; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Parliament’s decision, set out in the letter of 18 December 2015, by which it informed the applicant of the rejection of its tender submitted under public procurement procedure No 06B40/2015/M073 to the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building occupied by the European Parliament in Brussels;

| — | Annul the Parliament’s decision, date unknown, to award the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Parliament’s decision, date unknown, to award the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building;

| — | In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 infringement of the principle governing the qualitative selection criteria of the minimum thresholds to be applied by the service providers as regards their turnover, the competition principle and the principle of equality of tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle governing the qualitative selection criteria of the minimum thresholds to be applied by the service providers as regards their turnover, the competition principle and the principle of equality of tenderers.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement to state reasons for the acts of the EU institutions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement to state reasons for the acts of the EU institutions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality, equal treatment in and openness of public procurement, manifest error of assessment, equal treatment of tenderers and free competition between tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality, equal treatment in and openness of public procurement, manifest error of assessment, equal treatment of tenderers and free competition between tenderers.

---