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 62016TN0835

Case T-835/16: Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Louvers Belgium v Commission

IO C 30, 30.1.2017, p. 53–54 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.1.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/53

Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Louvers Belgium v Commission

(Case T-835/16)

(2017/C 030/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Louvers Belgium Company (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: V. Lejeune, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 September 2016 by which it rejected the applicant’s tender and awarded contract No OIB.02/PO/2016/012/703 to the RIDEAUPRESS ITLINE group;

—

uphold the claim for damages made by the applicant and, accordingly, order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the principal sum of EUR 387 500 as compensation for the damage sustained as a result of losing the contract, to be increased by default interest and judicially-determined interest calculated at the statutory rate until full payment is made;

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the 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 infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the right of the applicant to good administration and the principle of transparency in so far as, despite repeated and insistent requests from the applicant, the Commission failed to inform it of the technical specifications of the successful tenderer’s products or of the results of the report analysing the bids and samples sent by it to the Commission.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of transparency and the principle of equal treatment of tenderers by the Commission both when drafting the tender specifications and when evaluating the bids submitted by tenderers. In particular, the applicant claims that:

—

First, when drafting the tender specifications, the defendant reproduced the technical characteristics and product photos included in a tender submitted by a tenderer in a previous procurement procedure, which had a similar subject matter but was cancelled without any justification being given, thus creating unjustified obstacles to competitive tendering;

—

Secondly, the defendant infringed the fundamental rule of equality of tenderers by laying down technical requirements which were highly restrictive and unjustified from a technical point of view and were obviously intended to match the products of a particular economic operator;

—

Thirdly, the defendant failed objectively and independently to assess the tender submitted by the applicant in the procurement procedure at issue and unjustifiably rejected it since the applicant’s products complied fully with the minimum technical requirements set out in the tender specifications and therefore fulfilled all of the criteria required.

Accordingly, in the context of this second plea, the applicant claims that the tender which it had submitted was technically compliant and therefore admissible. The European Commission ought to have assessed the financial merits of that tender and it would consequently have been required to award the contract to the applicant given that it had proposed the lowest price.

Top