EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-637/11: Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Euris Consult v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0637

62011TN0637

December 15, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

4.2.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/41

(Case T-637/11)

2012/C 32/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Euris Consult Ltd (Floriana, Republic of Malta) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Parliament taken in the framework of call for tenders MT/2011/EU, concerning provision of translation services into Maltese, rejecting at the opening the offer submitted by the applicant for breach of confidentiality;

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant;

order that the applicant be permitted to seek damages for harm caused by the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging

violation of Article 98, paragraph 1, of the Financial Regulation, Article 143 of the Implementing Rules and Article 2.4 of call for tenders MT/2011/EU, and thus the inapplicability exception under Article 277 TFEU;

Second plea in law, alleging

violation of the principle of proportionality;

Third plea in law, alleging

violation of the principle of equal treatment;

Fourth plea in law, alleging

violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the contracting authority failed to hear the applicant before adopting the contested decision;

Fifth plea in law, alleging

that the contested decision was not sufficiently reasoned.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia