Action brought on 8 December 2025 – ‘Decibel – RF Living’ DZZD v Parliament

(Case T-838/25)

(C/2026/665)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: ‘Decibel – RF Living’ druzhestvo po Zakona za zadalzheniata i dogovorite [DZZD, company pursuant to the Law on obligations and contracts) (Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria) (represented by: E. Zhilova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 17 October 2025, by which the tender submitted by ‘Decibel – RF Living’ DZZD was rejected as abnormally low and as not compliant with the technical requirements and was excluded from participation in the open procedure regarding a design and build contract for a visitor centre in the Europa Experience in Sofia, Bulgaria;

—	order that the costs incurred by the applicant be reimbursed to it.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law: Infringement of Article 173(2) of, in conjunction with point 23 of Annex I to, Regulation 2024/2509. (1)

—

The contested decision does not set out the grounds for the rejection of the applicant’s tender and is not sufficiently reasoned. The defendant found that the applicant’s tender, as regards one of the positions, did not comply with the technical requirements on the sole basis of the proposed price, without requesting any supplementary evidence or carrying out an additional examination in the event of potential doubts. No consideration whatsoever was given to the evidence provided by the applicant in the price breakdown.

—

The defendant incorrectly found that the tender submitted was abnormally low and failed to explain in the contested decision how the potentially abnormally low value of an insignificant item in the overall tender could provide the basis for the rejection as abnormally low of the tender price as a whole. Nor did the defendant consider the ‘unexpected cost’ factored in by the applicant in the tender price, which could be used to cover potential differences between the proposed price and the price that the defendant does not regard as abnormally low.

Second plea in law: Failure to observe the principle of equal treatment, set out in point 17 of Annex I to Regulation 2024/2509.

—	The defendant rejected the applicant’s tender as not compliant with the technical requirements on the sole basis of the price breakdowns provided by the applicant.

—	In breach of the principle of equal treatment, the defendant introduced new technical requirements at the time of the evaluation of the price breakdowns provided by the applicant, which were not present either in the procurement documents or in the technical specifications.

Third plea in law: Failure to observe the principle of good administration, set out in recital 141 of Regulation 2024/2509 and in Article 69 of Directive 2014/24/EU. (2)

—	In breach of the principle of good administration, the defendant failed to seek clarification from the applicant regarding the inconsistency identified between the technical tender and the tender price breakdown, failing to provide the possibility of rectification of the technical mistake made.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L, 2024/2509).

(2) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).