EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62020TN0546

Case T-546/20: Action brought on 2 September 2020 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission

OJ C 359, 26.10.2020, p. 12–13 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.10.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/12


Action brought on 2 September 2020 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission

(Case T-546/20)

(2020/C 359/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Sopra Steria Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium), Unisys Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the decision taken by the European Commission in the context of a public contract published under reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006, entitled ‘CCN-Evolution: Specification, development, maintenance and 3rd level support of TAXUD IT platforms — Lot A: Evolution services for the CCN/CSI Platform’:

to reject the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicants;

to award the contract to the consortium ARHS-IBM;

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, breach of Article 23 of Annex I to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1). Second, that plea in law alleges a manifest error of assessment:

in so far as the Commission did not verify whether the tenderer’s prices were abnormal;

in so far as the Commission did not regard the tenderer’s bid as abnormally low.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, laid down in, inter alia, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the Commission did not provide adequate reasons for its decision not to regard the tenderer’s bid as abnormally low.


Top