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-99/17: Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Eutelsat v GSA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0099

62017TN0099

February 16, 2017
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

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/48

(Case T-99/17)

(2017/C 144/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eutelsat SA (Paris, France) (represented by: L. de la Brosse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that the application is admissible;

grant the request for investigative measures put forward by the applicant;

annul (i) the decision for the rejection of the applicant’s ‘Best and Final Offer’ (‘BAFO’) taken by the GSA in relation to the contract notice No GSA/CD/14/14 — ‘Galileo service operator’, and notified on 29 November 2016, and (ii) the decision to award the contract to another tenderer to operate and maintain the Galileo system;

order the defendant to bear the expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first, modified its candidature during the course of the procedure, in violation of (i) the Tender Specifications and (ii) of the principle of equality of treatment of the tenderers.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that during the course of the procedure, GSA modified the contents of the financial criteria for the selection of the offers.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the method used by GSA for ranking the price criteria did not enable the choice of the offer that was most economically advantageous.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the composition of the evaluation committee was not in accordance with the rules and its impartiality cannot be guaranteed.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first submitted an abnormally low tender.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach to the rules of transparency and equality of treatment of the candidates, and an advantage in contradiction to the rules concerning conflicts of interest.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the GSA made a number of errors concerning the Qualitative Award Criteria.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging that the GSA disregarded its obligation to give sufficient reasons for the contested decisions.

9.Ninth plea in law, alleging that the value of the contract is much lower than the total value stated in the contract award notice published by GSA and the BAFO of Eutelsat.

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