# C_2020087EN.01002301.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/23

---

Action brought on 7 January 2020 — Global Translation Solutions v Parliament

(Case T-7/20)

(2020/C 87/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Translation Solutions ltd. (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: C. Mifsud-Bonnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 28 October 2019 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 28 October 2019 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 (1);

| — | in the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 5 December 2019 to award Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 to only one single economic operator; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 5 December 2019 to award Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 to only one single economic operator; and,

| — | order the defendant to pay costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay 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 that the defendant’s decision of 28 October 2019 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 was unlawful on the basis that it is founded on an erroneous determination of fact, namely, that the file format ‘.doc’ did not satisfy the terms of the procurement documents on the basis that:






  — | that the procurement documents were not drafted in sufficiently clear precise and unequivocal terms; and/or, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision of 28 October 2019 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 was unlawful on the basis that it is founded on an erroneous determination of fact, namely, that the file format ‘.doc’ did not satisfy the terms of the procurement documents on the basis that:

—

that the procurement documents were not drafted in sufficiently clear precise and unequivocal terms; and/or,

| — | that the file format ‘.doc’ is functionally equivalent to the file format ‘.docx’. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the file format ‘.doc’ is functionally equivalent to the file format ‘.docx’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision of 28 October 2019 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 was unlawful on the basis that:






  — | that the defendant’s conduct was in breach of the law inter alia Article 106(3) the Commission Implementing Regulation (2) and contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement inter alia proportionality; and/or, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision of 28 October 2019 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 was unlawful on the basis that:

—

that the defendant’s conduct was in breach of the law inter alia Article 106(3) the Commission Implementing Regulation (2) and contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement inter alia proportionality; and/or,

| — | that the defendant’s conduct was in breach of the law inter alia Article 96(2) of the Financial Regulation (3) and general principles of Union law, including, sound administration inter alia duty to act with care. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the defendant’s conduct was in breach of the law inter alia Article 96(2) of the Financial Regulation (3) and general principles of Union law, including, sound administration inter alia duty to act with care.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision of 5 December 2019 to award Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 to only one single economic operator on the basis that is contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement and contrary to the terms of the procurement procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision of 5 December 2019 to award Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 to only one single economic operator on the basis that is contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement and contrary to the terms of the procurement procedure.

---

(1)  OJ 2019/S 54-123613

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1)

(3)  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)

---