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 62021TN0038

Case T-38/21: Action brought on 19 January 2021 — Inivos and Inivos v Commission

OJ C 98, 22.3.2021, p. 29–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.3.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/29

Action brought on 19 January 2021 — Inivos and Inivos v Commission

(Case T-38/21)

(2021/C 98/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Inivos Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Inivos BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Martens and L. Hoet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of unknown date to launch the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice for the purchase of up to 200 disinfection robots;

—

annul the decision of unknown date to award the Framework Contract for Disinfection Robots for European Hospitals (Covid-19) to UVD Robots APS / Kompaï Robotics & Teamnet;

—

annul the decision of 19 November 2020 to conclude the Framework Contract for Disinfection Robots for European Hospitals (Covid-19) with UVD Robots APS / Kompaï Robotics & Teamnet;

—

declare that the Framework Contract for Disinfection Robots for European Hospitals (Covid-19), in particular the concluded Contracts with reference FW-00103506 and FW-00103507 are null and void;

—

declare that defendant is liable for compensation on the basis of loss of opportunity.

—

order defendant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the Articles 160 (1) and (2) of the Financial Regulation and of Annex 1 — Chapter 1 — Section 2 — 11 of the Financial Regulation in conjunction with a breach of the principle of good administration, because the defendant wrongfully made use of the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice for the purchase of up to 200 disinfection robots, committing a manifest error of assessment.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached, one the one hand, the Articles 61, 160 (1) and 167 (1) of the Financial Regulation in conjunction with the general E.U. principles of transparency, equality and non-discrimination and, on the other hand, the article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, because the defendant and the successful tenderer (UVD Robots APS) are subject to a conflict of interest which entails a serious irregularity that renders the concluded Framework Contract null and void.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the Article 160 (3) of the Financial Regulation, because the award of the Framework Contract for Disinfection Robots for European Hospitals (Covid — 19) to UVD Robots APS distorts competition.
Top