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 62012TN0199

    Case T-199/12: Action brought on 8 May 2012 — Euro-Link Consultants and European Profiles v Commission

    OJ C 209, 14.7.2012, p. 10–10 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.7.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 209/10

    Action brought on 8 May 2012 — Euro-Link Consultants and European Profiles v Commission

    (Case T-199/12)

    2012/C 209/16

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Euro-Link Consultants Ltd (Bucharest, Romania) and European Profiles SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine, dated 28 February 2012, contested in the present action, given in the framework of the tender EuropeAid/131567/C/SER/UA ‘Crimean tourism diversification and support project’; as well as subsequent decisions of the same authority and of the director of the DG Development of the European Commission issued in the subject-matter;

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to state reasons, stressing that

    —

    case-law and legislation impose a duty on the defendant to elaborate on the advantages of the selected tender clearly, instead of merely contesting the evidence the applicants brought forward; a good administration has to examine and address the allegations correctly, all the more so when various aggravating factors intensify this requirement.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to respect the applicable procedure, stressing that

    —

    the evaluation procedure the committee followed was vitiated by irregularities, of which the defendant was aware and did not take into account prior to publishing the results. Thus, the subsequent decisions are unlawful, to the extent that they are based on the result of these irregularities.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of equal treatment and misuse of powers, stressing that

    —

    the illegal procedure was only applied in the case of the applicants, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. It also appears that the sole purpose of the illegal procedure was to eliminate the applicants from the first place in the evaluation list.
    Top