EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TN0099

Case T-99/17: Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Eutelsat v GSA

OJ C 144, 8.5.2017, p. 48–49 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.5.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/48


Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Eutelsat v GSA

(Case T-99/17)

(2017/C 144/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eutelsat SA (Paris, France) (represented by: L. de la Brosse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that the application is admissible;

grant the request for investigative measures put forward by the applicant;

annul (i) the decision for the rejection of the applicant’s ‘Best and Final Offer’ (‘BAFO’) taken by the GSA in relation to the contract notice No GSA/CD/14/14 — ‘Galileo service operator’, and notified on 29 November 2016, and (ii) the decision to award the contract to another tenderer to operate and maintain the Galileo system;

order the defendant to bear the expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first, modified its candidature during the course of the procedure, in violation of (i) the Tender Specifications and (ii) of the principle of equality of treatment of the tenderers.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that during the course of the procedure, GSA modified the contents of the financial criteria for the selection of the offers.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the method used by GSA for ranking the price criteria did not enable the choice of the offer that was most economically advantageous.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the composition of the evaluation committee was not in accordance with the rules and its impartiality cannot be guaranteed.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first submitted an abnormally low tender.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach to the rules of transparency and equality of treatment of the candidates, and an advantage in contradiction to the rules concerning conflicts of interest.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the GSA made a number of errors concerning the Qualitative Award Criteria.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the GSA disregarded its obligation to give sufficient reasons for the contested decisions.

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the value of the contract is much lower than the total value stated in the contract award notice published by GSA and the BAFO of Eutelsat.


Top