# C_2016260EN.01004802.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/48

---

Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Solelec and Others v Parliament

(Case T-281/16)

(2016/C 260/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Solelec SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Paul Wagner et fils SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Socom SA (Foetz, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul Decision No D(2016)14480 of 27 May 2016 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which the tender of the consortium ‘ELECTRO KAD’, formed by the companies SOLELEC S.A., MANNELLI & ASSOCIÉS S.A., PAUL WAGNER & FILS S.A. and SOCOM S.A., with regard to Lot 75 ‘electricity — high-voltage’ presented on 14 January 2016 in the context of call for tenders INLO-D-UPIL-T-15-AO6 concerning the extension project and upgrade of the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg was rejected and the decision that awarded the contract at issue to another tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision No D(2016)14480 of 27 May 2016 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which the tender of the consortium ‘ELECTRO KAD’, formed by the companies SOLELEC S.A., MANNELLI & ASSOCIÉS S.A., PAUL WAGNER & FILS S.A. and SOCOM S.A., with regard to Lot 75 ‘electricity — high-voltage’ presented on 14 January 2016 in the context of call for tenders INLO-D-UPIL-T-15-AO6 concerning the extension project and upgrade of the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg was rejected and the decision that awarded the contract at issue to another tenderer;

| — | Order production of the documents of the procurement file in which the contacts which were made between the Parliament and the tenderers were reported in accordance with Article 160(3) of 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 and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order production of the documents of the procurement file in which the contacts which were made between the Parliament and the tenderers were reported in accordance with Article 160(3) of 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 and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the selection criteria, which were not fulfilled by the consortium that was awarded the contract in so far as one of its members did not have legal personality for the entire duration of the work and it was, it is claimed, impossible for the consortium awarded the contract to have the references relating to technical and professional capacity as required in the tender specifications. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the selection criteria, which were not fulfilled by the consortium that was awarded the contract in so far as one of its members did not have legal personality for the entire duration of the work and it was, it is claimed, impossible for the consortium awarded the contract to have the references relating to technical and professional capacity as required in the tender specifications.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the award criteria. By comparing the tender submitted by the applicants to that of the consortium that was awarded the contract, the latter would have been revealed to be abnormally low, which would have led the defendant to reject that tender and to award the contract to the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the award criteria. By comparing the tender submitted by the applicants to that of the consortium that was awarded the contract, the latter would have been revealed to be abnormally low, which would have led the defendant to reject that tender and to award the contract to the applicants.

---