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-300/24: Action brought on 11 June 2024 – Geos Atlas v EUCAP Somalia

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0300

62024TN0300

June 11, 2024
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/2024/4735

5.8.2024

(Case T-300/24)

(C/2024/4735)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Geos Atlas Holding Ltd. (Balzan, Malta) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: EUCAP Somalia (Mogadishu, Somalia)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the decision made by EUCAP Somalia on 24 May 2024 which ruled on the inadmissibility of the tender submitted by the consortium of companies of which the applicant is the leader, in the context of call for tenders PROC-ECS-2023-023-R;

order EUCAP Somalia to undertake a further assessment of all the tenders received in the context of call for tenders PROC-ECS-2023-023-R, including the tender submitted by the consortium of companies of which the applicant is the leader;

order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest error in law in the adoption of the contested decision, on the ground that it was adopted by the defendant on the basis of a partial interpretation of a selection criterion recognised as nonetheless crucial.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the subsequent justifications put forward by the defendant are inadmissible and unfounded. In that regard, the applicant submits, first, that the defendant is not entitled to subsequently add the ground justifying the contested decision and, secondly, that the subsequent grounds put forward are based on a manifest error of fact.

3.Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of equality affecting the procedure of the award of contract that culminated in the contested decision. According to the applicant, the defendant did not respect its obligation of transparency, as a contracting entity, and which implies that all the terms and conditions of the award procedure are formulated in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, and that it provides all candidates with the technical information relevant to a proper understanding of the contract notice.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4735/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