CELEX: 62018TN0715
Language: en
Date: 2018-12-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-715/18: Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Phrenos and Others v Commission

25.2.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 72/31
            
         
      Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Phrenos and Others v Commission
      (Case T-715/18)
      (2019/C 72/40)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Phrenos SPRL (Mont-sur-Marchienne, Belgium), Akkanto (Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium) and Operational Management Solutions (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: R. Jafferali and R. van Melsen, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the European Commission, as notified to the applicants by letter of 27 November 2018, to award the contract for services relating to the planning, preparation, promotion and implementation of the ‘European Development Days’ event for its Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (EuropeAid/139729/DH/SER/BE) (2018/S 144- 328417) for the years 2019 to 2022 inclusive, to a third party;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the main and interim proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to state reasons for its award decision.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to properly assess the (apparent) abnormally low prices of the chosen tender.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of equal treatment with regard to the assessment of the tenders submitted.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the award criterion for the evaluation of tenders applied by the defendant was illegal.