This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/106/83
Case T-104/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by CEGELEC SA against European Parliament
Case T-104/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by CEGELEC SA against European Parliament
Case T-104/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by CEGELEC SA against European Parliament
JO C 106, 30.4.2005, p. 42–42
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.4.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 106/42 |
Action brought on 28 February 2005 by CEGELEC SA against European Parliament
(Case T-104/05)
(2005/C 106/83)
Language of the case: French
An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2005 by CEGELEC SA, whose registered office is in Brussels, represented by André Delvaux and Véronique Bertrand, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
|
— |
declare the action for annulment admissible; |
|
— |
annul the decision of 15 December 2004, by which the European Parliament rejected the tender submitted by CEGELEC SA and awarded to GROUP 4 Technology SA the three components making up the contract for the supply and commissioning of video surveillance systems for the three main workplaces of the European Parliament, which was the subject of a contract notice published in Official Journal of the European Union S 61 of 26 March 2004, and for which the reasons were notified to CEGELEC SA by letter of 16 December 2004; |
|
— |
order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
Please in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks annulment of the Parliament's decision to reject the applicant's tender in the call-for-tenders procedure concerning the provision of video surveillance systems at the European Parliament's three main workplaces and to award the contract to another tenderer.
In support of its application, the applicant describes a number of alleged infringements of the tendering conditions and of Regulations Nos 1605/2002 (1) and 2432/2002 (2) and of Directives 92/50 (3), 93/36 (4) and 2004/18 (5), which consist more particularly of:
|
— |
inadequate statement of the reasons for the contested decision notified to the applicant; |
|
— |
failure to apply the rules for awards of contract and the weighting system provided for in the tendering specifications; |
|
— |
the fact that, in the light of its size, the tender accepted was not in conformity with the obligation to submit a tender in writing in one of the official languages of the Union; |
|
— |
the fact that the Parliament, in breach of the principle of equal treatment for tenderers, awarded the contract on the basis of cameras which had not been demonstrated at the ‘photos-tests’ session; |
|
— |
the alleged belatedness of the tender that was accepted. |
(1) OJ L 248, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 357, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 209, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 199, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 134, p. 114.