Case T-228/18: Action brought on 5 April 2018 — Transtec v. Commission
Date: 2018-04-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, competition policy, consortium, damages, development aid, equal treatment, provision of services, right to justice, services contract, third country








C_2018182EN.01002901.xml










28.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/29





Action brought on 5 April 2018 — Transtec v. Commission
(Case T-228/18)
(2018/C 182/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Transtec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, avocats)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible and well founded;




and consequently:






—


annul the decision of 26 March 2018 by which the European Commission rejected the tender of the consortium led by the applicant for Lot No. 3 in the context of the ‘Framework contract for the implementation of external aid 2018 (SIEA EUROPAID/138778/DH/SER/MULTI’)’ call for tenders (‘Call for Tenders’) relating to a framework contract for the supply of services for the benefit of third countries receiving external EU aid and by which it awarded Lot No. 3 to 10 other tenderers,










—


call on the defendant, by way of measures of organisation of procedure (cf. Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court), to provide the following: (i) the characteristics and relative advantages of the 10 successful tenders for Lot No. 3 along with the scores obtained with regard to the criteria set out in points 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 of the technical assessment grid contained in Part C-I of ‘the Global Organisation and Methodology and the ‘technical’ and ‘financial’ scores obtained by those tenders for Lot No. 3 (ii) a copy of the evaluation committee’s detailed report;










—


declare the claim for damages in the amount of EUR 2 400 000 with a gross margin admissible and well founded;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its argument, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.






1.


A first plea, alleging that, by failing to exclude, on the ground of irregularities, a member of one of the tendering consortia to which the contract was awarded, the Commission infringed Article 106 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) (‘the Financial Regulation’) and point 4 of the Instructions to Tenderers (‘the Instructions’).










2.


A second plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the Commission and that, by failing to carry out a sufficiently careful examination of abnormally low tenders, the Commision infringed Article 110(5) of the Financial Regulation, Article 151 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1) (‘the implementing regulation’), the obligation under Article 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) to have due regard for the principle of sound administration and point 15.3 of the Instructions.










3.


A third plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons arising from 113(2) of the Finance Regulation and of Article 161(1) of the implementing regulation.










4.


A fourth plea, alleging breach of the right to an effective remedy, as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter.










5.


A fifth plea, alleging that the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and the guarantee of fair competition under Article 102(1) and (2) of the Financial Regulation have been infringed as a result of the illegality of point 7 of the Instructions.










6.


A sixth plea, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration under Article 41 of the Charter as a result of the illegality of point 7.3 of the Instructions.