EN
23.5.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 207/13
5.
Furthermore, may the solution adopted under Portuguese law in Article 70(2)(g) of the CCP, which limits the possibility of excluding a tender due to significant evidence of acts, agreements, practices or information that are liable to distort competition rules in the specific procurement procedure in which such practices are detected, be regarded as consistent with EU law, and in particular with Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU?
(1) (2)
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).
Código dos Contratos Públicos (Public Procurement Code).
Appeal brought on 8 February 2022 by QB against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-71/21, QB v Commission (Case C-88/22 P) (2022/C 207/18) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: QB (represented by: R. Wardyn, radca prawny) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought The Appellant claims that the Court should: — set aside the judgment under the appeal, in whole; and, therefore — annul the decisions of the European Commission of 6 th April 2020 and 3rd November 2020, or, failing that, — refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, and — order the European Commission to pay its own costs of the process as well as those of the Applicant in both instances.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the Appellant relies on one plea in law alleging violation of article 4 (1) of Annex VII of Staff Regulations and claims that the General Court: — erred in determining the main occupation of the Appellant as it disregarded the work done by the Appellant for the State of Poland and his status of a judge; — erred in defining the conditions of ‘work done for another state’; — disregarded and failed to take account of the work done by the Appellant for the State of Poland and his status of a judge while examining the exception of ‘work done for another state’.