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 62013TN0222

Case T-222/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — B&S Europe v Commission

OJ C 164, 8.6.2013, p. 24–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.6.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/24

Action brought on 15 April 2013 — B&S Europe v Commission

(Case T-222/13)

2013/C 164/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Business and Strategies in Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Bihain, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the application for annulment admissible and well founded and, consequently, annul the contested act;

—

therefore, order the European Commission to admit the applicant to the short-list of candidates invited to participate in the tendering procedure in the framework of contract EuropeAid/132633/C/SER/multi, lot No 7: Governance and home affairs;

—

order the European Commission to pay all the 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 a breach of the obligation to state reasons, of the principle of good administration, in particular in that it imposes a duty of consistency, of the principle of audi alteram partem, and an infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations and of the principle of fairness when the Commission, on the first occasion, in its letter of 2 April 2013 following its decision of 15 February 2013, rejected as non-eligible project No 25, proposed by the applicant to fulfil the technical capacity criterion, thus bringing the number of projects eligible as reference projects below the minimum necessary.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of point 2.4.11.1.3, second subparagraph, of the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions, and of clarification A 47 of the procurement notice, as the Commission incorrectly interpreted the concept of reference projects eligible to fulfil the selection criterion concerning the technical capacity of the candidate.
Top