Information;Order — ECLI:EU:T:2024:886
Date: 2024-12-06
Language of the case: French
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Subject matter: Public procurement in the European Union
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded

Action brought on 21 September 2024 – Alhares for Security Services and Occupational Safety v EUBAM Libya (Case T-493/24) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Alhares for Security Services and Occupational Safety (Tripoli, Libya) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the decision by which EUBAM Libya did not select the company Al Hares as a candidate invited to submit a tender under a negotiated procedure without prior publication for the provision of private security services; annul the decision of 5 September 2024 by which EUBAM Libya refused the request submitted by Al Hares on 29 August 2024 for authorisation to submit a tender in the context of the call for tenders for the provision of private security services; annul any decision or act resulting from or made possible by the two previous decisions, particularly in the context of the call for tenders organised by EUBAM Libya for the provision of private security services; order the EUBAM Libya to pay all the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging manifest error in law in implementing the negotiated procedure without prior publication. The applicant claims that the decision of EUBAM Libya not to include the applicant amongst the operators preselected for its call for tenders had, as a necessary prerequisite, the decision of that contracting authority to use the negotiated procedure without prior publication for that contract. The choice of that derogating procedure was illegal, since EUBAM Libya committed a manifest error in interpreting the rules governing that procedure. Second plea in law, alleging a manifestly erroneous assessment of the factual conditions allowing use of the negotiated procedure without prior publication. The applicant claims that it is impossible for EUBAM Libya to adduce evidence, the burden of which rests on it, showing that the three conditions required for use of that procedure were fulfilled. Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the decision not to include the applicant amongst the preselected operators and to refuse its request for authorisation to submit a tender. The applicant claims that, while the negotiated procedure without prior publication allows, in exceptional circumstances, for a temporary derogation from the principle of transparency by authorising the contracting authority not to publish a contract notice, it cannot result in that authority being allowed to undermine the fundamental principle of non-discrimination. By excluding arbitrarily the applicant from the list of preselected operators and by refusing to authorise it to submit a tender, without an objective reason, EUBAM Libya clearly infringed the fundamental principle of non-discrimination. ____________