- 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-206/17: Action brought on 3 April 2017 — Argus Security Projects v Commission and EUBAM
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0206
62017TN0206
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
19.6.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 195/33
(Case T-206/17)
(2017/C 195/46)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)
Defendants: European Commission, European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—annul the decision of EUBAM of 24 January 2017, replacing the initial decision of 16 February 2014, not to accept the tender submitted by the Argus company in a call for tenders concerning the supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (contract EUBAM-13-020), and to award the contract to Garda;
—order the defendants to pay the costs.
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 infringement of Article 110 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1), of the rules laid down in the specifications for the award of the contract, in particular points 4.1 and 12.1 of the instructions to tenderers, and of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and of non-discrimination. This plea is divided into three parts:
—first part, alleging a failure to mobilise technical and operational resources in accordance with the terms of the contract;
—second part, alleging a failure to mobilise human resources in accordance with the terms of the contract;
—third part, alleging that the mobilisation plan was artificial and criticising the taking into account of the prior experience of tenderers in hostile environments.
2.Second plea in law, alleging a substantive amendment to the initial conditions of the contract and infringement of the principle of equal treatment. This plea is divided into two parts:
—first part, relating to the assessment of human resources;
—second part, relating to the assessment of technical resources and the mobilisation plan.