CELEX: 62012TN0488
Language: en
Date: 2012-11-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-488/12: Action brought on 12 November 2012 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament

12.1.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 9/42
            
         Action brought on 12 November 2012 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament
   (Case T-488/12)
   2013/C 9/76
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Cit Blaton SA (CITEB) (Schaerbeek, Belgium) and Belgo-Metal (Wetteren, Belgium) (represented by: R. Simar, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the action for annulment admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision by which the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Infrastructure and Logistics, on 7 September 2012, rejected the applicants’ tender and awarded the contract to another tenderer, a decision about which the applicants were informed by letters of 7 and 18 September 2012;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament 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 an infringement of Articles 89(1) and (2) and 92 of the Financial Regulation, (1) of Article 135(1) and (5) of the Implementing Regulation (2) and Article 49 of Directive 2004/18, (3) and the principles of competition, transparency, equal treatment, proportionality and diligence, in so far as the contested decision does not contain the report compiled by the evaluation committee constituting the reason for the decision, and thus does not allow the applicants to check that the tender accepted is lawful.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state adequate reasons for decisions, of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation, of the contract documents and of the provisions governing the award of that contract, detailed and adequate reasons not being stated for the contested decision in so far as it does not include the information from the evaluation committee’s report.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).
   
      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)
   
      (3)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)