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-349/13: Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Orange Business Belgium v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0349

62013TN0349

July 1, 2013
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

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/38

(Case T-349/13)

2013/C 252/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Orange Business Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of DG DIGIT of the European Commission, notified to the applicant on 19 April 2013, rejecting the applicant's tender and awarding the contract to another tenderer;

In the event at the time of the rendering of the judgment the Commission would have already signed the Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations — new generation (‘TESTA-ng’) contract, declare that this contract is null and void; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the tendering specifications, Article 89(1) and Article 100(1) of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (Article 102(1) and Article 113(1) of the Financial Regulation 966/2012) in particular the principles of transparency, equality and non-discrimination because a) some communicated evaluation rules were not applied, b) some communicated evaluation rules were wrong and others, not communicated, evaluation rules have been applied instead, and c) the method for the technical evaluation was not communicated prior to the submitting of the tenders.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principles of transparency and equal treatment of tenderers contained in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (Article 102(1) of the Financial Regulation 966/2012), which invalidate the contested decision because it held the offer of the another tenderer regular, despite fundamental non-compliant elements in breach of the technical requirements of the Tendering Specifications.

Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

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