- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-33/18: Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0033
62018TN0033
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
26.3.2018
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 112/37
(Case T-33/18)
(2018/C 112/48)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Pracsis SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) and Conceptexpo Project (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)
Defendants: European Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the General Court should:
—declare the action admissible and well founded;
—annul the contested decisions, in that they designate Cecoforma as the successful tenderer for the framework contract of the call for tenders EACEA/2017/01, and annul the contract signed between EACEA and Cecoforma;
—order the European Commission and EACEA, jointly and severally, to pay to the applicants the sum of EUR 1 million;
—order the defendants to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the duty of transparency.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.
3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment.