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 C-101/22 P: Appeal brought on 10 February 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-546/20, Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0101

62022CN0101

February 10, 2022
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

23.5.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/14

(Case C-101/22 P)

(2022/C 207/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. André, M. Ilkova, O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sopra Steria Benelux, Unisys Belgium

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside paragraphs 52 to 57, 60, 61, 66, 68 and 69 of the judgment under appeal;

dismiss the action for annulment;

order Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium to pay the costs of the present proceedings before the Court of Justice and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, the Commission raises three grounds of appeal.

The first ground alleges that the General Court erred in law by qualifying the letter of the applicants at first instance of 10 July 2020 as an ‘express request’ for the reasons which led the contracting authority not to consider the successful tender as appearing to be abnormally low.

The second ground alleges a distortion of the facts, by incorrectly assessing the content of the Commission’s reply of 20 July 2020.

The third ground alleges failure to have regard to the scope of the contracting authority’s obligation to state reasons under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 170(3) of the Financial Regulation where the contracting authority considers that the successful tender does not appear to be abnormally low.

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