CELEX: 62018TN0033
Language: en
Date: 2018-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-33/18: Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA

26.3.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 112/37
            
         Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA
   (Case T-33/18)
   (2018/C 112/48)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Pracsis SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) and Conceptexpo Project (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)
   
      Defendants: European Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the action admissible and well founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decisions, in that they designate Cecoforma as the successful tenderer for the framework contract of the call for tenders EACEA/2017/01, and annul the contract signed between EACEA and Cecoforma;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission and EACEA, jointly and severally, to pay to the applicants the sum of EUR 1 million;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendants to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the duty of transparency.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment.