CELEX: 62011TN0668
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-668/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

14.4.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 109/14
            
         Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament
   (Case T-668/11)
   2012/C 109/33
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament to pay EUR 1 408 000 to SARL VIP CAR SOLUTIONS;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 to reject its tender submitted in the context of a tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1). (1) That decision was annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament. (2)
   
   In support of the action, the applicant alleges serious fault on the part of the Parliament as follows, giving rise to loss:
   
               —
            
            
               a breach of the obligation to notify the price offered by the successful tenderer;
            
         
               —
            
            
               a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament failed to give any information on the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, and
            
         
               —
            
            
               a manifest error of assessment, since the Parliament did not base its refusal decision on selection and award criteria defined in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders.
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2006/S 177-187988.
   
      (2)  [2009] ECR II-1403.