15.1.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/22

Action brought on 24 October 2017 — Clestra Hauserman v Parliament

(Case T-725/17)

(2018/C 013/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Clestra Hauserman (Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France) (represented by: J. Gehin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament set out in its letter of 24 August 2017 notifying the applicant of the rejection of the tender that it had submitted for Lot 55 in the context of call for tenders INLO–D–UPIL–T–16–AO8 relating to the project to extend and modernise the [Konrad Adenauer] Building in Luxembourg (‘the rejection decision’) and the decision awarding that lot to another tenderer (‘the award decision’);

—	order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant damages amounting to EUR 1 000 893 in respect of non-contractual liability, and in any event the amount of EUR 50 000 in respect of the cost of preparing the tender submitted in the context of call for tenders No 2014/S 123 218302;

—	order the European Parliament to pay all costs in the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging irregularities in the decision to eliminate the Clestra Hauserman company in so far as that decision is based on a second procurement procedure that was improperly initiated under contract notice No 2016/S 215-391081 of 8 November 2016 following the first procurement procedure, which had resulted in the applicant company being awarded the contract.

Second plea in law, alleging an absence of explanation as to the admissibility of the tender of the undertaking that won the contract pursuant to the provisions of the Specifications relating to the financial and technical capacities of that undertaking (Articles 12 and 13 of the Tender Specifications) and the documents required in the Invitation to Tender (Articles I to VI.G).

3.	Third plea in law, alleging the inadmissibility of the tender of the undertaking that won the contract in so far as the impropriety of that tender ought to have been established in view of its abnormally low price and, for that reason, its selection constitutes a manifest error of assessment.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment and transparency with regard to the procedure in the second call for tenders.