Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62024TN0658

Case T-658/24: Action brought on 18 December 2024 – Warbud v Frontex

OJ C, C/2025/1436, 10.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1436/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1436/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2025/1436

10.3.2025

Action brought on 18 December 2024 – Warbud v Frontex

(Case T-658/24)

(C/2025/1436)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Warbud S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Kuźma, M. Gajdek, W. Hartung and D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare Frontex’s decision, notified to the applicant on 23 October 2024, not to award the contract to the applicant in the award procedure FRONTEX/CD/1217/2021/RS – FRONTEX Permanent Premises, and award it to another tenderer, void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;

—

order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch Frontex infringed its duty to state the reasons that justify that the successful tenderer’s proposal was not considered abnormally low and that the applicant’s tender was not considered successful.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Paragraph 23.1 of Annex I of Regulation 2018/1046 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018, on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, inasmuch Frontex failed to review the successful tenderer’s offer to determine it as abnormally low.

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018, L 193, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1436/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

Top