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 62018TN0715

Case T-715/18: Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Phrenos and Others v Commission

OJ C 72, 25.2.2019, p. 31–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.2.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/31

Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Phrenos and Others v Commission

(Case T-715/18)

(2019/C 72/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Phrenos SPRL (Mont-sur-Marchienne, Belgium), Akkanto (Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium) and Operational Management Solutions (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: R. Jafferali and R. van Melsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the European Commission, as notified to the applicants by letter of 27 November 2018, to award the contract for services relating to the planning, preparation, promotion and implementation of the ‘European Development Days’ event for its Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (EuropeAid/139729/DH/SER/BE) (2018/S 144- 328417) for the years 2019 to 2022 inclusive, to a third party;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the main and interim proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to state reasons for its award decision.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to properly assess the (apparent) abnormally low prices of the chosen tender.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of equal treatment with regard to the assessment of the tenders submitted.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the award criterion for the evaluation of tenders applied by the defendant was illegal.
Top