Case T-825/25: Action brought on 28 November 2025 – Transcripta Translation Services v CdT
Date: 2025-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, public procurement, right to an effective remedy, services contract, tendering








C_202600663EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/663


9.2.2026






Action brought on 28 November 2025 – Transcripta Translation Services v CdT


(Case T-825/25)

(C/2026/663)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Transcripta Translation Services ltd. (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyer)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union of 19 September 2025 informing of its decision to rank the applicant in second position in procurement procedure CDT/2025/OP/0004 (‘the contested decision’); and










—


order the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 138(1)(e)(i), in connection with Article 143 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The applicant submits that the defendant failed to exclude the successful tenderer despite the latter having shown significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a prior legal commitment financed by the Union budget with the European Commission, which led to its early termination:






—


the defendant failed to undertake a specific and individualised assessment of the successful tenderer’s conduct. The defendant relied exclusively on the absence of the successful tenderer from the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) database and refused to examine the relevant facts or consult the European Commission, contrary to the requirements of the case-law;










—


irrespective of the failure to assess, the defendant made a manifest error of assessment. Had the defendant properly assessed the facts, it would have found that the early termination of the successful tenderer’s contract for significant deficiencies broke the relationship of trust, thus requiring an exclusion under Article 138(1)(e)(i) of Regulation 2024/2509.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 138(1)(c)(i) and (e)(i), in connection with 139(1) of Regulation 2024/2509 and Section 3 of the Tender Specifications:
The applicant argues that the successful tenderer failed to inform the contracting authority of the early termination of its previous contract with the European Commission, both at the time of submitting the tender and during the procedure.
This omission constituted a misrepresentation of information required for the verification of the absence of grounds for exclusion [Article 138(1)(c)(i) of Regulation 2024/2509] and a breach of the duty to immediately inform the contracting authority of any changes in the declared situations [Article 139(1) of Regulation 2024/2509]. The applicant claims that this misrepresentation and lack of cooperation constitute separate grounds for exclusion which the defendant failed to apply.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the defendant failed to state reasons in the contested decision.
In the alternative, if the defendant did undertake an individual assessment of the successful tenderer’s situation, the applicant submits that the defendant failed to disclose the reasons for deciding that the early termination of the prior contract did not justify exclusion.
The applicant contends that the complete absence of reasoning regarding the assessment of the competitor’s reliability prevented the applicant from determining whether the decision was well-founded and constrained its right to an effective remedy.






(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast) (OJ L, 2024/2509).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/663/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)