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 62016TN0392

Case T-392/16: Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Axium v Parliament

IO C 326, 5.9.2016, p. 33–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

5.9.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/33

Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Axium v Parliament

(Case T-392/16)

(2016/C 326/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Axium (Oberschaeffolsheim, France) (represented by: N. Deleau, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of 9 June 2016 by which the European Parliament took the decision to eliminate Axium’s tender from the procurement procedure;

—

order the European Parliament to pay Axium the sum of EUR 4 000 pursuant to Article 133 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure;

—

order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging the formal illegality of the European Parliament’s Decision D 201714 of 9 June 2016 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure 06D30/2015/M064, concerning the procedure ‘France-Strasbourg: Framework contract for asbestos-removal work in the European Parliament buildings in Strasbourg’ (OJ 2015/S 242-438527) and of the decision to award that contract to another tenderer (‘the contested decision’), in so far as the person who signed the letter sent to the applicant, containing the contested decision, did not enjoy any delegation of authority, which is necessary to allow him to engage the responsibility of the contracting authority, namely the European Parliament.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the substantive illegality of the contested decision in so far as the elimination of the applicant’s tender does not comply with Article 158(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and is, therefore, not justified.
Top