CELEX: 62015TN0419
Language: en
Date: 2015-07-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-419/15: Action brought on 28 July 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament

12.10.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 337/27
            
         Action brought on 28 July 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-419/15)
   (2015/C 337/28)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           Decision No D(2015)24297 of 29 May 2015 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which procurement procedure reference number INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4 — lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg was annulled;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Decision No D(2015)28116 of 11 June 2015 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which procurement procedure reference number INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4 — lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg was annulled;
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, in so far as the defendant merely justified the annulment decisions of 29 May 2015 and 11 June 2015 on the ground that the other offers received, including the applicants’, significantly exceeded the estimate of the market value previously used as a basis by the contracting authority, without specifying that value in those decisions. The defendant indicated that estimated amount only in a later letter of 18 June 2015.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicants argue that the defendant’s estimate of the market value does not correspond to the reality of the market and is vitiated by a manifest undervaluation.