14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/38

(Case T-570/13)

2013/C 367/69

Language of the Procedure: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—grant the measures of inquiry requested;

—order the Commission to pay damages as assessed in the application, increased as appropriate;

—order that the information provided in Annexes A.23 and A.24 be treated as confidential;

—direct the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application seeks compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the irregularities on the part of the Commission in the tender procedure ‘Establishing a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) “Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability”’ (AGRI-2012-EIP-01).

In support of its action the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.

1.Error of assessment of the tender and infringement of the principle of equal treatment in relation to award criterion No 1.

The applicant claims in that regard that:

—the evaluation committee erred in concluding that Agriconsulting did not develop the communication strategy aspect, given that the applicant’s technical tender contained six pages in which that aspect is developed at length;

—the evaluation committee infringed the principle of equal treatment since it assessed that the communication strategy of the applicant’s tender under criterion No 1, even though, in the case of the tender submitted by the successful tenderer, the evaluation committee assessed the communication strategy under criterion No 2.

2.Error of assessment of the tender and misinterpretation and misapplication of award criterion No 2.

The applicant claims in that regard that:

—the evaluation committee erred in holding that there was an obligation to ensure the presence of a number of permanent staff and that, therefore, in the absence of such, it had to give a negative assessment to the applicant’s tender;

—the evaluation committee failed to assess the external experts’ input.

3.Error of assessment of the tender, breach of the rules concerning contracts financed by European resources and breach of the tender rules in relation to award criterion No 3.

The applicant claims in that regard that the evaluation committee carried out a fresh assessment of the elements which had been the subject of the assessment in the previous selection stage, breaching, in so doing, the limits and the rules which govern the selection stage and contract award stage.

4.Infringement, in relation to award criterion No 3, of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to use award criteria which are not confused with the tender selection criteria.

—The applicant claims in that regard that, if award criteria No 3 permits an assessment based on staffing numbers alone, such a criterion would be disproportionate and inadequate with respect to the objective of identifying the most economically advantageous tender and would infringe the obligation to use, for the purpose of the comparative evaluation of the tenders, award criteria which are not confused with the administrative selection criteria for the tender.

5.Infringement, in relation to award criterion No 3, of the principle of the separation of the various stages of a public tendering procedure which provides that the most economically advantageous tender should be awarded the contract.

—The applicant claims in that regard that the evaluation committee, having used information gathered in the context of the financial evaluation stage of the tender to amend the assessment made at the earlier qualitative evaluation stage of the applicant’s tender, infringed the principle of the separation of the various stages of a public tendering procedure which applies the method of awarding the contract to the most economically advantageous tender.

6.Manifest error of assessment of the tender in relation to the award criterion No 3 in so far as it concerns the capability to complete the main tasks.

—The applicant claims in that regard that, contrary to that set out in the tender specifications, the evaluation committee held that the involvement, however limited, of the team leader and his deputy in supervising and checking the additional tasks would make it impossible to complete the main tasks.

7.Misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of an abnormally low tender.

—The applicant claims in that regard that the evaluation committee identified an anomaly by reference only to one part of the tasks (the additional tasks), without however assessing whether that ‘anomaly’ rendered, de facto, the entirety of the applicant’s tender unreliable or inconsistent with respect to the implementation the subject-matter of the contract.

8.Arbitrariness and irrationality of the parameters used when applying the concept of an abnormally low tender, and infringement of the adversarial principle and the principle of equal treatment.

—The applicant claims in that regard that the evaluation committee adopted arbitrary and unjustified criteria to calculate the degree of abnormality of the applicant’s offer, without taking in account the applicant’s organisational and commercial capabilities.