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-419/15: Action brought on 28 July 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0419

62015TN0419

July 28, 2015
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

12.10.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/27

(Case T-419/15)

(2015/C 337/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul:

Decision No D(2015)24297 of 29 May 2015 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which procurement procedure reference number INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4 — lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg was annulled;

Decision No D(2015)28116 of 11 June 2015 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which procurement procedure reference number INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4 — lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg was annulled;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, in so far as the defendant merely justified the annulment decisions of 29 May 2015 and 11 June 2015 on the ground that the other offers received, including the applicants’, significantly exceeded the estimate of the market value previously used as a basis by the contracting authority, without specifying that value in those decisions. The defendant indicated that estimated amount only in a later letter of 18 June 2015.

2.Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicants argue that the defendant’s estimate of the market value does not correspond to the reality of the market and is vitiated by a manifest undervaluation.

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