23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/59

(Case T-497/15)

(2015/C 389/68)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Oltis Group a.s. (Olomouc, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Konečný, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the European Commission rejecting the applicant’s tender, or tenders, for the innovation programmes ‘The Innovation Programme IP 4 — IT Solutions for Attractive Railway Services’ and ‘The Innovation Programme IP 5 — Technologies for Sustainable & Attractive European Freight’ in the context of the ‘Shift2Rail’ project;

—award the applicant the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the assessment body exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction The applicant claims, inter alia, in this regard that the assessment body could not, in its procedure, supplant the exclusive right of the applicant to combine several separate tenders for the grant of the status of an associated member of the company ‘Shift2Rail’ in a single tender and it has thereby vitiated its assessment procedure. The applicant further submits that, if the submission of two separate tenders by one tenderer for different innovation programmes was not in accordance with the procurement documents, from the point of view of the assessment body, and if those documents do not provide for such a situation, then it should have been warned regarding that fact pursuant to Part 8.2 of the procurement documents, and therefore it should retain its right to dispose of the tenders submitted.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed by the assessment body was not in accordance with the procurement documents The applicant claims in this connection that the assessment body did not act in accordance with the procurement documents, inasmuch as it disposed of the applicant’ tenders without notifying the applicant or calling on it to clarify any ambiguities or errors. The applicant is further of the opinion that the assessment body should have assessed (and awarded points to) its tenders separately, even after they were combined in a single tender, since it is only by following this procedure that the principle of objective evaluation and assessment may be complied with. The procedure followed by the assessment body, in assessing the applicant’s tenders together and thus also awarding points with regard to the assessment criteria together, is misleading, discriminatory and in conflict with the basic principle of the procurement documents, and renders the decision impossible to review.