Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62018TN0299

Case T-299/18: Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

OJ C 259, 23.7.2018, p. 41–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
16/05/2018
Date lodged:
16/05/2018
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
French
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment
201807060581993892018/C 259/562992018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516414221

Case T-299/18: Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

Top

C2592018EN4110120180516EN0056411422

Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-299/18)

2018/C 259/56Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;

—

consequently, annul (i) the decision of 19 April 2018 confirming the decision of the European Parliament of 24 November 2017 to award the framework contract for general contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels (Call for tenders No 06/D20/2017/M036) to five tenderers other than Strabag Belgium SA and not to the latter undertaking, and (ii) the tender analysis report (addendum) drafted on 26 March 2018 by the evaluation committee appointed by the responsible authorising officer;

—

order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs, including procedural compensation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement:

(i)

of Article 110(5) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1) as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1), providing that the Commission is to be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 210 concerning details on the award criteria, including the most economically advantageous tender;

(ii)

of Article 151 [of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012], as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2462 of 30 October 2015 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 342, p. 7), setting out the rules applicable to abnormally low tenders; and

(iii)

of Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, enshrining the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts.

The applicant takes the view that those rules were infringed in so far as the contested decision:

(i)

indicates that no element provided either in the tenders submitted or in the additional explanations subsequently requested makes it possible to state that the tender of one of the companies awarded the contract was abnormally low in the light of the applicable rules; and

(ii)

regards the abovementioned tender as the lowest compliant tender without adequate reasoning, whereas that tender was evidently not the lowest compliant tender, contained abnormally low prices and ought to have been declared improper and rejected following a more specific and thorough examination conducted by the European Parliament.
Top