Case T-809/17: Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, tendering, translation








C_2018072EN.01003701.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/37





Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT
(Case T-809/17)
(2018/C 072/48)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: É. Subasicz, lawyer)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Primarily, declare whether the points awarded to each tenderer are accurate on the basis of the comparison of the bids submitted and whether they comply with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency.










—


In the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 10 July 2017 concerning the result of the public procurement procedures FL/GEN 16-01 and FL/GEN 16-02.










—


In the further alternative, annul the public procurement procedures.










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, inasmuch as the defendant applied different approaches to the tenderers in the public procurement procedures, in that it assessed identical activities differently in each procedure. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers by not sending the applicant the information required in the public procurement procedures. (2)











3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the transparency of public procurement procedures, inasmuch as the defendant only published the result of the procedure in the Official Journal out of time and without including all the information prescribed by the EU Directive. (3)











4.


Fourth plea in law alleging that the defendant infringed the Directive on public procurement by failing to give notice of the time limit for review, thus limiting the possibility of review. (4)







(1)  Recitals 1 and 90 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2)  Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(3)  Article 50 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(4)  Annex V, Part D (point 16) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).