# C_2023054EN.01002401.xml

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/24

---

Action brought on 4 January 2023 — Enmacc v Commission

(Case T-1/23)

(2023/C 54/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Enmacc GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. von Bonin, A. Pliego Selie and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the Commission of 12 December 2022 to launch the call for tenders by way of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, not to invite the applicant to participate in the tendering procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041 and to explicitly reject the applicant’s request to be invited to that tender procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Commission of 12 December 2022 to launch the call for tenders by way of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, not to invite the applicant to participate in the tendering procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041 and to explicitly reject the applicant’s request to be invited to that tender procedure;

| — | in subsidiary order, insofar as the contested decision would not give expression to the Commission’s decision to launch a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice and not to invite the applicant to the tendering procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041, annul that decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in subsidiary order, insofar as the contested decision would not give expression to the Commission’s decision to launch a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice and not to invite the applicant to the tendering procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041, annul that decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s 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 contested decision infringes Article 164(5)(f) and Point 11.1(c) of Annex 1 of 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. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 164(5)(f) and Point 11.1(c) of Annex 1 of 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. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of transparency and equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of transparency and equal treatment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to state reasons, in breach of Article 41(2), third indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 296(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to state reasons, in breach of Article 41(2), third indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 296(2) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1.

---