# C_2019357EN.01003701.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/37

---

Action brought on 27 July 2019 – Militos Symvouleftiki v Commission

(Case T-536/19)

(2019/C 357/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Militos Symvouleftiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Farmakidis-Markou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General court should:

| — | annul the decision communicated on 29 May 2019 to cancel the procurement procedure PR/2018-16/ATH for the award of a framework-contract for the provision of services in the field of organisation of communication activities, published OJ 2019/S 110-267174. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision communicated on 29 May 2019 to cancel the procurement procedure PR/2018-16/ATH for the award of a framework-contract for the provision of services in the field of organisation of communication activities, published OJ 2019/S 110-267174.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The first plea in support of annulment, whereby the applicant challenges the false and unfounded reasons stated in the contested decision and alleges a manifest error of assessment. Contrary to the reasons stated in the contested decision, the budget for the work is not exceeded by the applicant’s tender and it is not expressly stated that all the tenders exceeded the budget. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in support of annulment, whereby the applicant challenges the false and unfounded reasons stated in the contested decision and alleges a manifest error of assessment. Contrary to the reasons stated in the contested decision, the budget for the work is not exceeded by the applicant’s tender and it is not expressly stated that all the tenders exceeded the budget.

| 2. | The second plea in support of annulment, whereby the applicant challenges the misapplication of the provision in the invitation to tender which defines the method for comparative assessment of the tenders as a ground for the exclusion of tenders, or as a formal requirement for the submission of a tender. The total of reference prices, which according to the contested decision exceeds the budget for the framework-contract, constitutes only a means of identifying the most advantageous tender and does not accurately reflect the needs of the market in services at the time of performance of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in support of annulment, whereby the applicant challenges the misapplication of the provision in the invitation to tender which defines the method for comparative assessment of the tenders as a ground for the exclusion of tenders, or as a formal requirement for the submission of a tender. The total of reference prices, which according to the contested decision exceeds the budget for the framework-contract, constitutes only a means of identifying the most advantageous tender and does not accurately reflect the needs of the market in services at the time of performance of the contract.

| 3. | The third plea in support of annulment, whereby the applicant challenges the improper recourse to the option provided for by Article 171 of the Financial Regulation. The reasons stated for the cancellation of the procurement procedure reveal both contradictions, in that there is evidence of over-estimation of the needs of the contracting authority, consequently a reasonable probability of reduced final costs for the contract when it is to be performed, and lacunae, in that it is not expressly stated that the tenders of all the participating companies deviated from the budget by exceeding it, which factors looked at objectively suggest that the decision was made for reasons other than those relied on. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in support of annulment, whereby the applicant challenges the improper recourse to the option provided for by Article 171 of the Financial Regulation. The reasons stated for the cancellation of the procurement procedure reveal both contradictions, in that there is evidence of over-estimation of the needs of the contracting authority, consequently a reasonable probability of reduced final costs for the contract when it is to be performed, and lacunae, in that it is not expressly stated that the tenders of all the participating companies deviated from the budget by exceeding it, which factors looked at objectively suggest that the decision was made for reasons other than those relied on.

| 4. | The fourth plea in support of annulment, whereby the applicant alleges that insufficient reasons were stated in relation to the failure to apply Article 169(2) of Regulation 2018/1046 ΕU. (1) |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in support of annulment, whereby the applicant alleges that insufficient reasons were stated in relation to the failure to apply Article 169(2) of Regulation 2018/1046 ΕU. (1)

---

(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)

---