8.6.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/24

(Case T-163/20)

(2020/C 191/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Isopix SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van den Bulck and J. Fahner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament’s decision communicated by letter of 24 March 2020 informing the applicant that its tender for public contract COMM/DG/AWD/2019/854 had not been accepted and that that contract had been awarded to another tenderer;

—order the Parliament to reconsider the tenders; in the alternative, order the Parliament to pay the applicant damages for the harm suffered as a result of the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the contract and for the costs and expenses incurred in participating in that tendering procedure;

—order the Parliament to produce the tender analysis report;

—order the Parliament to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits that the letters sent by the Parliament do not constitute a statement of reasons which complies with the requirements of the General Financial Regulation, on the ground that they do not set out the qualitative benefits of the successful tender, information in relation to the price criterion, or the final score received by the applicant’s tender.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of transparency and equal treatment. The applicant submits that its tender, which was prepared specially to be displayed on a screen, was considered on the basis of a paper version contrary to the provisions of the invitation to tender. Accordingly, a crucial part of the file was not taken into consideration, contrary to the requirements of transparency and equal treatment.

3.Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty of care. According to the applicant, the Parliament failed to comply with its duty of care to verify whether the photographers whose CVs were submitted in the successful tenderer’s tender had agreed to work in Brussels and Strasbourg.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed a manifest error of assessment by not excluding the successful tenderer’s tender even though it was incompatible with the selection criterion requiring that the tenderer have a team of at least 15 people for lot 1 and 12 people for lot 2.