ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
11 March 2025 (*)
( Action for annulment – Public supply contracts – Tendering procedure – Supply services of personnel, including temporary staff – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility )
In Case T‑408/24,
Intrawork OÜ,
established in Tallinn (Estonia),
Recruitment Estonia OÜ,
established in Tallinn,
represented by C. Ginter and M. Sõrm, lawyers,
and
Advokaadibüroo Sorainen OÜ,
established in Tallinn,
represented by K. Pļaviņa-Mika, lawyer,
applicants,
v
European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA), represented by M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, and by E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, A. Guillerme and F. Patuelli, lawyers,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),
composed of A. Kornezov, President, G. De Baere (Rapporteur) and D. Petrlík, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the order of 5 November 2024, Intrawork and Others v eu-LISA (T‑408/24 R, not published, EU:T:2024:792),
having regard to the written part of the procedure, in particular, the plea of inadmissibility raised by eu-LISA by a separate document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 23 October 2024,
makes the following
Order
1        By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants, Intrawork OÜ, Recruitment Estonia OÜ and Advokaadibüroo Sorainen OÜ, seek annulment of the call for tenders issued by the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) on 19 June 2024 by contract notice published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2024 S 118), in open procedure No 361026-2024 (‘the call for tenders at issue’).
Background to the dispute and facts subsequent to the bringing of the action
2        On 6 December 2022, eu-LISA issued a call for tenders in open procedure No 693661-2022 (‘the initial call for tenders’), which comprised two lots. Lot No 2 concerned the provision of advisory services not related to information and communication technologies (ICT) for a period of 3 years, with the possibility of renewal for a period of 12 months, by means of framework contracts.
3        On 21 September 2023, Lot No 2 of the initial call for tenders was awarded to the consortium formed by the applicants, which were ranked in second place, and to two other tenderers.
4        On 8 November 2023, framework contract LISA/2022/OP/04/02/02 was concluded between the applicants and eu-LISA (‘the initial framework contract’). Subsequently, specific contracts governing eu-LISA’s application for non-ICT-related consultancy services were concluded.
5        The purpose of the call for tenders at issue was the provision of supply services for temporary staff for a period of 3 years, with the possibility of renewal for a period of 12 months, by means of framework contracts, and consisted of two lots, one covering Estonia and the other France.
6        The deadline for the submission of tenders was set at 12 August 2024.
7        After the present action was brought, on 12 August 2024, the consortium formed by the applicants submitted a tender for the two lots in the call for tenders at issue.
Forms of order sought
8        The applicants claim that the Court should:
–        annul the call for tenders at issue;
–        order eu-LISA to pay the costs.
9        In its plea of inadmissibility, eu-LISA contends that the Court should:
–        dismiss the action as manifestly inadmissible;
–        order the applicants to pay the costs.
Law
10      Under Article 130(1) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Court may, at the defendant’s request, give a decision on inadmissibility without going to the substance of the case.
11      In the present case, as eu-LISA has applied for a decision on inadmissibility, the Court, considering that it has sufficient information from the material in the file, has decided to rule on that application without taking further steps in the proceedings.
12      In its plea of inadmissibility, eu-LISA raises, in essence, five pleas of inadmissibility, alleging, first, that the action does not satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, second, that the General Court lacks jurisdiction, third, that the applicants have no interest in bringing proceedings, fourth, that there is no act adversely affecting the applicants and, fifth, that the application does not satisfy the requirements set out in Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure.
13      The applicants did not submit observations on that plea of inadmissibility within the prescribed period.
14      It is necessary to examine the plea of inadmissibility alleging that the applicants have no interest in bringing proceedings.
15      According to settled case-law, the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is subject to the condition that the person concerned has an interest in having the contested act annulled. Such an interest requires that the annulment of that act must be capable, in itself, of having legal consequences and that the action may therefore, through its outcome, procure an advantage to the party which brought it. An applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must be vested and current and may not concern a future and hypothetical situation (see judgment of 11 September 2024, Fridman and Others v Council, T‑635/22, EU:T:2024:620, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
16      That interest must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the stage of lodging the action, failing which the action will be inadmissible (see judgment of 12 December 2024, Nemea Bank v ECB and Others, C‑181/22 P, EU:C:2024:1020, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
17      It is the applicant who must prove that he or she has an interest in bringing proceedings (see judgment of 21 December 2022, Landwärme v Commission, T‑626/20, EU:T:2022:853, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
18      If the interest upon which an applicant relies concerns a future legal situation, that applicant must demonstrate that the prejudice to that situation is already certain. Therefore, an applicant cannot rely upon future uncertain circumstances to establish that applicant’s interest in applying for the annulment of the contested measure (see order of 22 December 2021, D & A Pharma v EMA, T‑381/21, not published, EU:T:2021:960, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
19      In the present case, the applicants maintain that they have an interest in bringing proceedings for the annulment of the call for tenders at issue. In that regard, they claim, in essence, that the call for tenders at issue has adverse effects on them in so far as its subject matter overlaps with that of the initial call for tenders. More specifically, the signing of a new framework contract, following the call for tenders at issue, would reduce, if not remove, the applicants’ opportunities to bid for services and obtain revenue under the initial framework contract.
20      It must be noted that that line of argument put forward by the applicants concerns a future and hypothetical situation with the result that it does not demonstrate an interest in bringing proceedings against the call for tenders at issue.
21      In that regard, and without it being necessary to examine whether the subject matter of the call for tenders at issue and that of the initial call for tenders overlap, it must be observed, first, that the adverse effects alleged by the applicants in order to establish their interest in bringing proceedings arise from the possible award of a contract and the signing of a new framework contract following the call for tenders at issue and on the basis that, afterwards, eu-LISA would then cease to use the initial framework contract. However, the call for tenders at issue does not, in itself, lead to the award of such a contract or the signing of such a framework contract.
22      Second, even if the applicants’ interest in bringing proceedings could arise from eu-LISA limiting the scope of the initial framework contract or ceasing to make use of it following the signing of a new framework contract, that assumption is based on the future conduct of eu-LISA when implementing the call for tenders at issue. The circumstance that eu-LISA may favour a possible framework contract signed on the basis of the call for tenders at issue, to the detriment of the initial framework contract, cannot be considered to be certain within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 18 above.
23      Accordingly, the applicants have not shown that they had a vested and current interest in the annulment of the call for tenders at issue.
24      It follows that the action must be dismissed as inadmissible, without it being necessary to examine the other pleas of inadmissibility raised by eu-LISA.
Costs
25      Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
26      Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by eu-LISA, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief in accordance with the form of order sought by eu-LISA.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1.      The action is dismissed.
2.      Intrawork OÜ, Recruitment Estonia OÜ and Advokaadibüroo Sorainen OÜ shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA), including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief.
Luxembourg, 11 March 2025.
V. Di Bucci
A. Kornezov
Registrar
President
*      Language of the case: English.