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 62011TN0395

    Case T-395/11: Action brought on 26 July 2011 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro

    OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 35–36 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    24.9.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 282/35

    Action brought on 26 July 2011 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro

    (Case T-395/11)

    2011/C 282/69

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Republic of Slovenia) (represented by: N. Zidar Klemenčič, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union, represented by the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro

    Form of order sought

    —

    Declare the defendant in violation of Article 2 and 30(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1);

    —

    Annul the negotiation procedure conducted in the framework of the tender procedure ‘Support to the Digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting — Supply of equipment, Montenegro’ (reference EuropaAid/129435/C/SUP/ME-NP) (OJ 2010/S 178-270613), since the applicant had not been given an equal treatment and, as a result, it had not been able to correct/explain its tender;

    —

    Annul the contract award decision in the above mentioned tender procedure;

    —

    In the event the contract had already been concluded, to declare such contract null and void;

    —

    In the alternative, if the contract had already been carried out when the Court gives judgment, or the decision can no longer be declared void, declare the defendant in violation of Article 2 and 30(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC and order defendant to pay the applicant damages of EUR 172 541,56 as compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant in regard to that procedure; and

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of any intervening party.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Articles 2 and 30(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, as:

    —

    Information relevant for submitting the offer was not made available to all participants in the public procurement procedure in the same manner and quality;

    —

    The successful tenderer was provided information in a discriminatory manner which gave it an advantage as it was able to correct its tender; and

    —

    The negotiation procedure was conducted in such a way that the defendant influenced the outcome of the procedure by requesting additional information or clarifications from only certain participants, thereby violating the principle of non-discrimination and transparency.

    (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)

    Top