CELEX: 62022TN0108
Language: en
Date: 2022-03-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-108/22: Action brought on 1 March 2022 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission

10.5.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/30
            
         
      Action brought on 1 March 2022 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission
      (Case T-108/22)
      (2022/C 191/39)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Sopra Steria Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium) and Unisys Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision taken by the European Commission in the context of a public contract published under reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006, entitled ‘CCN-Evolution: Specification, development, maintenance and 3rd level support of TAXUD IT platforms — Lot A: Evolution services for the CNN/CSI Platform’ and communicated on 20 December 2021, by which the Commission confirms that it rejects the tender submitted by the consortium consisting of the applicants and that it awards the contract to a competing consortium;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         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 that the decision of 20 December 2021 is null and void. The applicants claim, in that regard, that the contested decision must be regarded as a decision which merely confirms an earlier decision previously annulled by the Court.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the tender specifications, breach of the principles of good administration and, in particular, of the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti and of the duty of thoroughness. According to the applicants, the Commission infringed its own tender specifications by reasoning the tenderer’s price as normal on account of 60 % of the services carried out in Romania and Greece being subcontracted. Moreover, the Commission did not take into consideration the start of the performance of the contract by the tenderer, which contradicts the reasoning adopted in the confirmatory decision.