EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/20

Action brought on 1 March 2013 — Direct Way and Direct Way Worldwide v Parliament

(Case T-126/13)

2013/C 147/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Direct Way (Brussels, Belgium); and Direct Way Worldwide (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible and well founded;

— consequently, — annul: — the Parliament’s decision, of unknown date, to abandon the tendering procedure implemented on the ground that ‘the bids received in response to the tender were unacceptable in view of the award criteria, in particular the proposed prices, which are too high compared to the value set out in the contract notice’, brought to the attention of the Direct Way group by letter dated 3 September 2012; — the Parliament’s decision, of unknown date, to apply the negotiated procedure without publication for the purpose of awarding the contract, brought to the attention of the Direct Way group by the tendering procedure invitation communicated to it on 19 September 2012; — the Parliament’s decision, of unknown date, to award the contract to a competing tenderer, brought to the attention of the Direct Way group by e-mail of 21 December 2012 and confirmed by letter of 3 January 2013;

— accordingly, declare void the contract concluded between the Parliament and the s.c.s. TMS Limousines;

— order the Parliament to pay to the Direct Way group the provisional amount of EUR 199 500 per year as compensation for the loss sustained;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety, in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1. The first plea alleges infringement of Article 101 of the Financial Regulation (1), of Article 127(1)(a) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation (2) and of the principle of equality, and a manifest error of assessment, as the Parliament awarded the contract by negotiated procedure at a price above that submitted by the applicants in the context of the initial invitation to tender.

2. A second, alternative, plea alleges infringement of Article 127(1)(a) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation and of the principle of equality, as the Parliament substantially amended the initial conditions of the contract (i) by awarding the contract at a price above that considered unacceptable in the initial invitation to tender (first part) and (ii) by lowering the estimate of the volume to be provided in relation to the volume set out in the initial conditions of the contract, thus affecting the assessment of the price of the negotiated bids (second part).

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).