CELEX: 62008TN0524
Language: en
Date: 2008-12-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-524/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — AIB-Vinçotte Luxembourg v Parliament

21.2.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 44/51
            
         Action brought on 2 December 2008 — AIB-Vinçotte Luxembourg v Parliament
   (Case T-524/08)
   (2009/C 44/91)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: AIB-Vinçotte Luxembourg ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by R. Adam, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 2 October 2008 rejecting the offer made by the applicant in connection with call for tenders INLO — A — BATI LUX — 07 268 & 271 — 00 for the refurbishment and extension of the Konrad Adenauer Building, Luxembourg,
            
         
               —
            
            
               reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions, in particular an order that the Parliament pay damages in connection with the loss incurred;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in any event, order the Parliament to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Parliament's decision to reject its offer submitted in connection with the call for tenders for lot B of the contract relating to the projected extension and refurbishment of the KAD building in Luxembourg — Tasks of an approved inspection body (OJ 2008 S 193-254240).
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law:
   
               —
            
            
               manifest error of assessment on the part of the Parliament, in that (i) the association to which the contract was awarded did not have the necessary authorisations to perform the tasks requested, as required in the tender specifications, and (ii) that association's offer stated a price that was abnormally low having regard to the criteria in the specifications;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that (i) the Parliament did not state the specific benefits of the offer accepted in comparison with the applicant's offer, thus not enabling the applicant to identify the reasons why its offer was not accepted, and (ii) the applicant was not put in a position to know whether the assessment committee met and, if so, what its conclusions were;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of the principles of diligence, good administration and transparency, as the Parliament failed to provide the explanations requested within a reasonable time;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of the provisions of the administrative specifications, in that neither the contested decision nor the subsequent letters mentioned remedies.