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-173/25: Action brought on 10 March 2025 – BT GS Belgium v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0173

62025TN0173

March 10, 2025
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2025/2413

28.4.2025

(Case T-173/25)

(C/2025/2413)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BT Global Services Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: V. Dor, A. Lepièce and M. Vilain XIIII, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the European Commission’s decision, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 December 2024, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) to award the contract with reference number DIGIT/2023/NP/0017 Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations – New Generation (TESTA-ng III), through a negotiated procedure without prior publication;

grant any other relief that the Court considers appropriate in the circumstances; and

in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law, in that the conditions to use a negotiated procedure without a prior notice, according to Article 164(5)(f) of the Financial Regulation (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) and Point 11.1(c) of Annex I to the Financial Regulation, were not met, since the direct award was not strictly necessary for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events which were not attributable to the contracting authority.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law, in that the direct award of the contested contract aims at artificially narrowing competition in violation of the essential principles of fair competition, equal treatment and transparency.

(1) OJ S 244/2024.

(2) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1). (Editorial note: this is the version of the Financial Regulation on which the applicant relies.)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2413/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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