natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sagsøgeren har til støtte for søgsmålet til prøvelse af beslutningen af 13. oktober 2004 hvad angår del nr. 2 gjort tre anbringender gældende vedrørende henholdsvis en tilsidesættelse af det almindelige princip om god forvaltningsskik, en åbenbar fejlvurdering og en tilsidesættelse af forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling.
In support of its action against the decision of 13 October 2004, in so far as it relates to Lot No 2, the applicant raises three pleas in law alleging breach of the general principle of sound administration, a manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
Sagsøgeren har endvidere i replikken gjort et fjerde anbringende gældende, hvorefter Rådet har tilsidesat bestemmelserne i artikel 139, stk. 1, i gennemførelsesbestemmelserne ved ikke at kontakte sagsøgeren før afvisningen af selskabets bud.
In addition, the applicant has raised a fourth plea in its reply, alleging that, by failing to contact it before its tender was rejected, the Council infringed Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules.
Sagsøgeren har nærmere bestemt anført, at de tre første anbringender vedrørende henholdsvis en tilsidesættelse af det almindelige princip om god forvaltningsskik, forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling og en åbenbar fejlvurdering er begrundet i det forhold, at sagsøgerens bud vedrørende del nr. 2 blev afvist automatisk uden nærmere prøvelse alene med den begrundelse, at det totale antal arbejdstimer angivet i det nævnte bud var mere end 12,5% lavere end det gennemsnitlige totale antal timer tilbudt i de modtagne bud.
The applicant essentially submits that the first three pleas, alleging breach of the general principle of sound administration, breach of the principle of non-discrim-ination and a manifest error of assessment, are well founded inasmuch as its tender in respect of Lot No 2 was rejected automatically, without further consideration, on the sole ground that the total number of working hours included in that tender was more than 12.5% lower than the average of the total number of hours proposed in the tenders that were found to be admissible.
Sagsøgeren finder for det første, af lignende grunde, at det kriterium, der er indeholdt i udbudsbetingelserne, om det gennemsnitlige totale antal tilbudte timer, hvorpå Rådet uden nærmere prøvelse baserede sin afvisning af sagsøgerens bud, strider mod princippet om god forvaltningsskik og er behæftet med et åbenbart urigtigt skøn.
In the first place, the applicant argues that, for similar reasons, the selection criterion in the specifications regarding the average of the total number of hours proposed, on which the Council based its rejection of the applicant’s tender, without giving it further consideration, infringes the principle of sound administration and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
Dette kriterium medførte nemlig, at bud, der forudsatte et større antal timer end nødvendigt og derved var dyrere, blev foretrukket.
The result was that preference was given to tenders that provided for a greater number of hours to be worked than was truly necessary and which were therefore more expensive.
Sagsøgeren har herved for det første påpeget, at dette kriterium, anvendt af Rådet, ikke gjorde det muligt objektivt at fastlægge det antal timer, der er nødvendigt for at præstere de omhandlede tjenester.
In that regard, the applicant first of all argues that the criterion adopted by the Council does not allow for an objective evaluation of what is needed in order to provide the services in question.
Sagsøgeren har dels fremhævet, at selskabet siden den 1. januar 1998 til Rådets fulde tilfredshed har varetaget rengøringen og vedligeholdelsen af den bygning, som del nr. 2 omhandler, på grundlag af et samlet antal timer, som svarer til det antal, der er angivet i selskabets bud.
It states that it has, entirely to the Council’s satisfaction, been providing cleaning and maintenance services for the building covered by Lot No 2 since 1 January 1998 and has been doing so on the basis of a total number of hours equivalent to that included in its tender.
Mens det medgives, at Rådet ikke kunne tage denne erfaring i betragtning, finder sagsøgeren, at denne erfaring gør det muligt på en objektiv måde at godtgøre, at det samlede antal timer, der er nødvendig for at præstere de omhandlede tjenester under i det mindste lignende vilkår, var mindre end i det bud, der til slut blev accepteret, og dermed, at det af Rådet anvendte kriterium fremmede en overvurdering af dette antal timer.
While acknowledging that the Council could not take that experience into account, it takes the view that such experience simply provides objective evidence that the total number of hours needed to provide the services in question, in, at the very least, equivalent conditions, was lower than that included in the tender that was ultimately accepted and, accordingly, that the criterion applied by the Council encouraged the number of hours in question to be overestimated.
Dels finder sagsøgeren, at en bedømmelse af de omhandlede tjenesters omfang ikke med rimelighed kan afhænge af buddene fra de bydende selv, eftersom disse kan have en interesse i efter samråd at forøge omfanget af de omhandlede tjenester kunstigt.
It also considers that the evaluation of the volume of the services in question cannot reasonably be dependent on the bids submitted by the tenderers themselves, since the latter could, in collusion with one another, have an interest in artificially inflating the volume of the services tendered for.
Endelig kan antallet af arbejdstimer ikke udgøre det vigtigste kriterium for bedømmelsen af kvaliteten af det arbejde, der skal udføres.
Finally, the number of hours worked cannot be the main criterion for assessing the quality of the work to be undertaken.
Sagsøgeren har vedrørende dette sidste punkt bemærket, at hvis selskabet kunstigt havde øget det tilbudte antal timer i sit bud, ville buddet ikke automatisk være blevet udelukket.
As regards the last-mentioned point, the applicant states that, were it to have artificially inflated the number of hours proposed in its tender, that tender would not have been automatically excluded.
For det andet har sagsøgeren gjort gældende, at Rådet ikke med føje kan anføre det argument, at det valgte bud var 3,7% dyrere end sagsøgerens bud, da det valgte bud tilbød 25,2% flere timer i forhold til sagsøgerens bud.
Secondly, the applicant argues that the Council cannot rely on the fact that although the successful tenderer’s bid was 3.7% more expensive than that of the applicant, that tenderer proposed a number of hours that was 25.2% greater than the number of hours proposed in the applicant’s tender.
Sagsøgeren har dels fastholdt, at det samlede antal tilbudte timer i det valgte bud var højere end det antal timer, der faktisk er nødvendig for at præstere de tjenester, der er angivet i udbudsbetingelserne på de angivne kvalitetsvilkår.
It states once again that the total number of hours proposed by the successful tenderer was higher than the number of hours that was actually necessary to carry out the work referred to in the specifications in
Dels har sagsøgeren tilføjet, at den valgte bydende i realiteten ikke yder det samlede antal timer, som er angivet i buddet, hvilket ifølge sagsøgeren bekræfter, at det antal timer, som sagsøgeren havde tilbudt, svarede til, hvad der var nødvendigt for at udføre rengøring i de lokaler, som er omfattet af del nr. 2.
Accordingly, the overestimation of the services to be provided by the successful tenderer led to damage being done to the Council and those who fund it. It adds that the true position is that the selected tenderer does not provide all of the hours referred to in its tender and that that point confirms that the number of hours proposed by it corresponds with what was necessary in respect of the cleaning of the premises covered by Lot No 2.
Sagsøgeren har for det andet anført, at udvælgelseskriteriet er diskriminerende, for så vidt som det fører til udelukkelsen af et bud, som er objektivt fordelagtigt for Rådet ud fra et budgetsynspunkt og fuldstændigt tilfredsstillende ud fra et kvalitetssynspunkt, uden nærmere prøvelse.
In the second place, the applicant submits that the selection criterion adopted is discriminatory in so far as it leads to tenders being automatically excluded, without being given further consideration, that are objectively advantageous to the Council in budgetary terms and perfectly satisfactory from a qualitative point of view.
Sagsøgeren har for det tredje gjort gældende, at Rådet har tilsidesat bestemmelserne i gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1.
In the third place, the applicant submits that the Council infringed the provisions of Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules.
Sagsøgeren finder nemlig, at Rådet inden afvisningen af sagsøgerens bud med henvisning til, at det indeholdt et unormalt lavt antal tjenestetimer, skulle have gennemført en kontradiktorisk kontrolprocedure under de betingelser, der er opstillet i gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1.
It argues that before rejecting its tender on account of the total number of hours of services proposed being abnormally low, the Council should have verified that tender, after due hearing of the parties, in accordance with Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules.
Det fremgår endvidere af retspraksis, at en automatisk udelukkelse af et unormalt lavt bud er forbudt, når det sker under anvendelse af et matematisk kriterium (Domstolens dom af 22.6.1989, sag 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo, Sml. s. 1839).
Furthermore, it is clear from the caselaw that the automatic elimination of abnormally low tenders on the basis of the application of a mathematical criterion is prohibited (Case 103/88 Fratelli Costanzo [1989] ECR 1839).
Rådet har erindret om, at tildelingen af en kontrakt til den bydende, der har fremsat det økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud, ikke nødvendigvis ifølge retspraksis er ensbetydende med, at det billigste bud vælges.
The Council states that, according to the case-law, the award of a contract to the tenderer who submitted the tender offering best value for money does not mean that the successful tender is necessarily the cheapest.
Rådet har tilføjet, at en lovmæssig konkurrence særligt har til formål at vise, at det er muligt at udføre flere og bedre opgaver.
It adds that a particular objective of the regular use of the competitive tendering procedure is to show that it is possible to do better or to do more.
På et konkurrencepræget marked modsvarer det gennemsnitlige samlede antal timer, som alle de bydende har tilbudt, sandsynligvis en holdbar og pålidelig beregning af de timer, som er nødvendige for at sikre, at tjenesten præsteres korrekt ud fra et kvalitetssynspunkt.
In a competitive market, the average of the total number of hours proposed by all tenderers is likely to represent a robust and reliable estimate of the means required for the service to be properly provided from a qualitative point of view.
Rådet finder nemlig, at et højere antal timer afsat til rengøring medfører en højere kvalitet.
The Council takes the view that, if a greater number of hours are allocated to cleaning, that will mean that a higher level of quality will be achieved.
I det foreliggende tilfælde har Rådet konstateret, at den bydende, der fik tildelt kontrakten, havde fremsat et bud, der var 3,7% dyrere end sagsøgerens bud, men til gengæld indeholdt det 25,2% flere arbejdstimer end sagsøgerens bud.
In the present case, the Council notes that, while the successful tenderer had submitted a bid that was 3.7% more expensive than that of the applicant, by contrast, it was proposing 25.2% more hours of work than the applicant.
Rådet har desuden bemærket, at selv om priskriteriet var vægtet til 50% ved bedømmelsen af buddene, svarede det
In addition, it points out that although the price criterion was worth a maximum of 50% in the tender evaluation procedure, the disputed criterion relating
BELFASS MOD RÅDET omtvistede kriterium vedrørende det samlede antal tilbudte timer ikke til mere end 25% af det samlede antal points, der kunne tildeles.
BELFASS v COUNCIL to the total number of hours proposed counted for only 25% of the total number of marks to be awarded.
Det accepterede bud var dermed det økonomisk mest fordelagtige, og sagsøgerens tjenester var som sådan meget dyrere.
The successful tenderer’s bid was therefore better value for money and the applicant’s services were, for their part, considerably more expensive.
Rådet har i øvrigt bemærket, at de stempelkort, der er anvendt af personalet hos den bydende, der fik tildelt kontrakten, bekræfter, at de præsterede tjenester svarer til forpligtelserne i henhold til kontraktvilkårene.
The Council also states that the time-cards of the successful tenderer’s employees show that the services provided are those which that tenderer is obliged to provide in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Hvad angår sagsøgerens påstande om, at der er en risiko for, at de bydende indfører en samordnet praksis for at øge omfanget af tjenesterne kunstigt, har Rådet opfordret sagsøgeren til at kontakte konkurrencemyndighederne, hvis sagsøgeren har beviser herfor.
As regards the applicant’s claims that there is a risk of collusion between tenderers, who might agree among themselves that the volume of services should be artificially inflated, the Council invites the applicant, to the extent that it has any evidence in that respect, to contact the competition authorities.
Hvad angår det tredje anbringende om tilsidesættelse af princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling har Rådet bestridt, at dette princip forhindrer det i at lægge vægt på kvaliteten af sagsøgerens tidligere tjenester ved valget af bud.
In relation to the third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrim-ination, the Council replies that that principle prohibited it from taking into account the quality of the services previously provided by the applicant when awarding the contract.
Rådet har endelig anført, at det fjerde anbringende vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1, som sagsøgeren har påberåbt sig i sin replik, er et nyt anbringende, som følgelig ikke kan antages til realitetsbehandling.
Lastly, the Council submits that since the fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules, was raised by the applicant in its reply, it is a new plea and is, accordingly, inadmissible.
Rådet finder under alle omstændigheder ikke, at sagsøgerens bud var unormalt lavt.
In any event, the Council states that the applicant’s tender was not abnormally low.
Rådet har nemlig nærmere bestemt anført, at den kontradiktoriske procedure i tilfælde af et unormalt lavt bud, som fastsat i gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1, kun skal iagttages i forhold til prisen i buddet.
It essentially argues that, in the case of an abnormally low tender, it is necessary to comply with the requirement laid down in Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules to verify the constituent elements of a tender, after due hearing of the parties, applies only in relation to the pricing of that tender.
Rådet har påpeget, at selv om sagsøgerens bud indeholdt 25,2% færre timer end det valgte bud, var sagsøgerens bud kun 3,7% billigere end det valgte bud.
It states that while the applicant proposed a total number of hours in its tender that was 25.2% lower than the successful tenderer’s bid its price was only 3.7% lower than that proposed by the latter.
Det er således Rådets opfattelse, at sagsøgerens tjenester var meget dyrere end tjenesterne i det valgte bud.
It accordingly takes the view that the applicant’s services were considerably more expensive than those of the successful tenderer.
Før det undersøges, om der skal gives medhold i annullationssøgsmålet til prøvelse af beslutningen af 13. oktober 2004 hvad angår del nr. 2, skal Retten tage stilling til, om det fjerde anbringende angående en tilsidesættelse af gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1, kan antages til realitetsbehandling.
Before considering the substance of the action for annulment against the decision of 13 October 2004, in so far as it relates to Lot No 2, it is necessary first of all to rule on the admissibility of the fourth plea, alleging infringement of the provisions of Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules.
— Realitetsbehandlingen af det fjerde anbringende angående en tilsidesættelse af gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1
— The admissibility of the fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules
Ifølge fast retspraksis fremgår det af artikel 44, stk. 1, litra c), sammenholdt med artikel 48, stk. 2, i Rettens procesreglement, at stævningen skal indeholde søgsmålets genstand og en kort fremstilling af søgsmålsgrundene, og at nye anbringender ikke må fremsættes under sagens behandling, medmindre de støttes på retlige eller faktiske omstændigheder, som er kommet frem under retsforhandlingerne.
According to settled case-law, it follows from Article 44(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that the original application must contain the subjectmatter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law relied on, and that new pleas in law may not be introduced in the course of the proceedings unless they are based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.
Imidlertid bør et anbringende, som udgør en uddybning af et anbringende, der tidligere er fremsat direkte eller indirekte i stævningen, og som har en nær sammenhæng med dette, antages til realitetsbehandling (Domstolens dom af 30.9.1982, sag 108/81, Amylum mod Rådet, Sml. s. 3107, præmis 25, og af 19.5.1983, sag 306/81, Verros mod Parlamentet, Sml. s. 1755, præmis 9, samt Rettens dom af 17.12.1997, sag T-216/95, Moles García Ortúzar mod Kommissionen, Sml.Pers. I-A, s. 403, og II, s. 1083, præmis 87).
However, a submission or argument which may be regarded as amplifying a plea made previously, whether directly or by implication, in the original application, and which is closely connected therewith, will be declared admissible (Case 108/81 Amylum v Council [1982] ECR 3107, paragraph 25; Case 306/81 Verros v Parliament [1983] ECR 1755, paragraph 9; and Case T-216/95 Moles García Ortúzar v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-403 and II-1083, paragraph 87).
Det følger endvidere af retspraksis, at det fremgår af gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1, at den ordregivende myndighed, inden den forkaster et bud, som den finder unormalt lavt, skal give den bydende mulighed for at forklare, og endog begrunde, buddets indhold (Rettens dom af 6.7.2005, sag T-148/04, TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 2627, præmis 49).
The caselaw also provides that, under Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules, the contracting authority is obliged to allow the tenderer to clarify, or even explain, the characteristics of its tender before rejecting it, if it considers that a tender is abnormally low (Case T-148/04 TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium v Commission [2005] ECR II-2627, paragraph 49).
Retten påpeger, at sagsøgeren i stævningens punkt 17 til støtte for søgsmålet til prøvelse af beslutningen af 13. oktober 2004 hvad angår del nr. 2, særligt gjorde gældende, at der forelå en tilsidesættelse af det almindelige princip om god forvaltningsskik, princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling, og at Rådet begik en åbenbar fejlvurdering ved at afvise sagsøgerens bud uden nærmere prøvelse med den ene begrundelse, at det samlede antal arbejdstimer angivet i det nævnte bud var mere end 12,5% lavere end det tilbudte gennemsnitlige samlede antal timer.
In the present case, the Court finds that, in paragraph 17 of its application, the applicant places particular reliance, in support of it action against the decision of 13 October 2004, in so far as it relates to Lot No 2, on the infringement of the general principle of sound administration, infringement of the principle of non-discrimin-ation and a manifest error of assessment, in that its tender was rejected, without being given further consideration, on the sole ground that the total number of hours of work in that tender was more than 12.5% lower than the average of the total number of hours proposed.
Sagsøgeren har i stævningens punkt 26 anført, at iværksættelsen af dette kriterium er udtryk for forskelsbehandling, idet det indebærer, at objektivt mere fordelagtige bud forkastes ex officio uden yderligere undersøgelse.
Similarly, in paragraph 26 of its application, it submits that the implementation of that criterion is discriminatory in that it leads to the automatic exclusion, without further consideration, of objectively more advantageous tenders.
Det følger heraf, at sagsøgeren i stævningen udtrykkeligt kritiserer Rådet for, at det har forkastet sagsøgerens bud uden yderligere undersøgelse, og dette fordi det var unormalt lavt.
It follows that the applicant, in its application, expressly criticised the Council for having rejected its tender without further consideration, by reason of its being abnormally low.
Det følger af ovenstående, at det fjerde anbringende vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1, udgør en uddybning af de tre anbringender, som er anført i stævningen, og har nær sammenhæng med disse anbringender, selv om sagsøgeren først udtrykkeligt har påberåbt sig anbringendet i replikken.
It follows that although the fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules, was not expressly raised by the applicant until its reply, that plea represents an amplification of the three pleas put forward in the original application and is closely connected with them.
Anbringendet kan således antages til realitetsbehandling.
That plea must accordingly be declared admissible.
— Om søgsmålet til prøvelse af beslutningen af 13. oktober 2004 er begrundet hvad angår del nr. 2
— The substance of the action against the decision of 13 October 2004, in so far as it relates to Lot No 291
Som det fremgår af præmis 89 ovenfor, har de tre anbringender i stævningen, og som vedrører henholdsvis en tilsidesættelse af princippet om god forvaltningsskik, et åbenbart urigtigt skøn og en tilsidesættelse af forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling, nærmere bestemt til formål at godtgøre, at Rådet begik en fejl ved ikke — inden det automatisk afviste sagsøgerens bud på grund af det unormalt lave antal timer i buddet — i overensstemmelse med den kontradiktoriske procedure i gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1, at give sagsøgeren mulighed for at begrunde, at der var tale om et seriøst bud.
As was mentioned in paragraph 89 above, the three pleas raised in the application and alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of non-discrimination essentially seek to show that the Council was wrong not to invite the applicant, prior to the automatic elimination of the latter’s tender by reason of the abnormally low number of hours proposed by the applicant and in accordance with the principle that the constituent elements of that tender should be verified after due hearing of the parties laid down in Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules, to provide it with evidence that the tender was a genuine one.
Følgelig skal det fjerde anbringende angående en tilsidesættelse af gennemførelsesbestemmelsernes artikel 139, stk. 1, undersøges først.
Consequently, it is appropriate to start by examining the fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 139(1) of the Implementing Rules.