Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62011TN0668

Case T-668/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

SL C 109, 14.4.2012, p. 14–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/14

Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

(Case T-668/11)

2012/C 109/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

order the European Parliament to pay EUR 1 408 000 to SARL VIP CAR SOLUTIONS;

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 to reject its tender submitted in the context of a tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1). (1) That decision was annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament. (2)

In support of the action, the applicant alleges serious fault on the part of the Parliament as follows, giving rise to loss:

—

a breach of the obligation to notify the price offered by the successful tenderer;

—

a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament failed to give any information on the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, and

—

a manifest error of assessment, since the Parliament did not base its refusal decision on selection and award criteria defined in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders.

(1)  OJ 2006/S 177-187988.

(2)  [2009] ECR II-1403.

Top