27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/39

Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Germann Avocats and XJ (*) v Commission

(Case T-352/18)

(2018/C 301/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Germann Avocats LLC (Geneva, Switzerland), XJ (*) (represented by: N. Skandamis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the defendant’s decision contained in a letter received by the applicants on 2 April 2018, rejecting the joint tender submitted by them for a follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity in the workplace (call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042);

—order the defendant to provide legally satisfactory transparency in the form of pertinent information and quantitative and qualitative analysis concerning the competition-related situation pertaining in particular to the successful tenderer and in relation to diversity concerns in the relevant markets for the tender at issue;

—order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR 35 000, plus interest to the applicants, on account of the harm they allegedly suffered as a result of failure to respect their legitimate expectations, a loss of opportunity to perform the contract in question and infringement of other rights and principles;

—order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons in its evaluation of their tender in respect of the call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment in its evaluation of the applicants’ tender in respect of the said call for tenders.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to secure the applicants’ legitimate expectations as to a competitive market situation guaranteeing a level playing field among competitors, including by tolerating and/or favouring actual or possible abuses of dominant market positions, and that the defendant infringed the principles of equal treatment, sound administration, transparency and good faith in the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision.

(*) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.