CELEX: 62019CN0447
Language: en
Date: 2019-06-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-447/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by SA Close, Cegelec against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-259/15, Close and Cegelec v Parliament

16.9.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 312/5
            
         
      Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by SA Close, Cegelec against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-259/15, Close and Cegelec v Parliament
      (Case C-447/19 P)
      (2019/C 312/07)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellants: SA Close, Cegelec (represented by: J.-L. Teheux, J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment under appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  consequently, grant the form of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly, annul the decision taken on 19 March 2015 by the Parliament awarding the public works contract in respect of the ‘Project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’ lot 73 (energy unit), under reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04, to the consortium ENERGIE-KAD (formed of the companies MERSCH et SCHMITZ PRODUCTION SARL and ENERGOLUX SA) and, in turn, not selecting the appellants’ tender;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Parliament to pay the costs.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      The appellants claim that the General Court failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU, Article 113(2) of the financial regulation and Article 161(2) and (3) of the rules of application of the financial regulation.
      The General Court also distorted the scope of the second plea in law raised at first instance, attributed incorrect scope to the concept of manifest error of assessment, the principle of sound administration and the obligations stemming from that principle, and made an error of assessment that led to distortion of the facts and evidence.
      Lastly, the appellants submit that the judgment under appeal lacks an adequate statement of reasons, in so far as it in no way addresses certain arguments put forward by them.