EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0769
Case T-769/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament
Case T-769/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament
Case T-769/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament
OJ C 46, 9.2.2015, p. 54–55
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
9.2.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/54 |
Action brought on 14 November 2014 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament
(Case T-769/14)
(2015/C 046/70)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: CGI Luxembourg SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul the European Parliament’s decision to select the tender of the applicants as second in the cascade in Lot 3 ‘Development and maintenance of production information system’ of the open Call for Tenders (the ‘CfT’) No PE/ITEC/ITS14 ‘External Provision of IT Services’ and the decision of the European Parliament to award the first cascade contract to the ‘Steel consortium’; |
— |
order the European Parliament to pay the applicants’ damages suffered for the loss of contract; |
— |
alternatively, order the European Parliament to pay the applicants’ damages suffered of the loss of opportunity; and |
— |
order the European Parliament to pay the applicants legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging the existence of errors in the evaluation formula, contradictory instructions to the tenderers, infringement of the instructions to tenderers, infringement of the Tender specifications, infringement of the principles of Transparency and Good Administration.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 110 of the Financial Regulation and 149 of the Delegated Regulation — The formula used does not lead to the award of the contract to the tender offering the best value for money.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging vagueness and ambiguity of the Tender Specification.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons — of the right to an effective remedy and of an essential procedural requirement.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Tender Specifications and of Article 107 (1) (a) of the Financial Regulation.
|