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 62021TN0376

Case T-376/21: Action brought on 2 July 2021 — Instituto Cervantes v Commission

OJ C 338, 23.8.2021, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.8.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/28

Action brought on 2 July 2021 — Instituto Cervantes v Commission

(Case T-376/21)

(2021/C 338/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Instituto Cervantes (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the action inadmissible;

—

annul the decision of the European Commission to award lot 3 (Spanish language) of the contract relating to framework contracts for language training for the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union (No HR/2020/OP/0014), in first place to the consortium CLL Centre de Langues-Allingua and in second place to the applicant;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 a failure to give sufficient reasons in the contested decision with regard to the assessment of the relative merits of the tenders.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to compare the relative merits of the tenders.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by rejecting, without verifying their validity, the parts of the tender which were accessible via a hypertext link incorporated in the tender.

4.

Fourth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging, first, that there was no link between the assessment of the intrinsic qualities of the applicant's tender and its scoring under sub-criteria 1.1 and 1.2 set out in the contract notice and, second, that there was a breach of the principle of transparency.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the objective of opening up public contracts to competition as widely as possible.
Top