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 62011TN0637

Case T-637/11: Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Euris Consult v Parliament

OJ C 32, 4.2.2012, p. 41–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

4.2.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/41

Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Euris Consult v Parliament

(Case T-637/11)

2012/C 32/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Euris Consult Ltd (Floriana, Republic of Malta) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Parliament taken in the framework of call for tenders MT/2011/EU, concerning provision of translation services into Maltese, rejecting at the opening the offer submitted by the applicant for breach of confidentiality;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant;

—

order that the applicant be permitted to seek damages for harm caused by the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

violation of Article 98, paragraph 1, of the Financial Regulation, Article 143 of the Implementing Rules and Article 2.4 of call for tenders MT/2011/EU, and thus the inapplicability exception under Article 277 TFEU;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

violation of the principle of proportionality;

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

violation of the principle of equal treatment;

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging

—

violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the contracting authority failed to hear the applicant before adopting the contested decision;

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested decision was not sufficiently reasoned.
Top