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-668/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0668

62011TN0668

December 30, 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

14.4.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/14

(Case T-668/11)

2012/C 109/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

order the European Parliament to pay EUR 1 408 000 to SARL VIP CAR SOLUTIONS;

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 to reject its tender submitted in the context of a tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1). That decision was annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament.

In support of the action, the applicant alleges serious fault on the part of the Parliament as follows, giving rise to loss:

a breach of the obligation to notify the price offered by the successful tenderer;

a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament failed to give any information on the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, and

a manifest error of assessment, since the Parliament did not base its refusal decision on selection and award criteria defined in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders.

O J 2006/S 177-187988.

[2009] ECR II-1403.

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