Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

C/2023/350

30.10.2023

(Case T-560/23)

(C/2023/350)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: JDS Architects ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Coldefy & associés architectes urbanistes (Lille, France), NL Architects BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Carlorattiassociati Srl (Turin, Italy), Ensamble studio SL (Las Rozas, Spain) (represented by: M. Vastmans and M. Dheur, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—declare the action for annulment admissible and well-founded;

consequently:

—annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 12 June 2023, which acknowledges the preference of the members of the Bureau of the Parliament for option No 2 (renovation of the Henri-Spaak Building, rejection of the tender submitted by the EUROPARC consortium), and instructs the Secretary-General of the Bureau to draw up an implementation plan detailing the technical and financial assessments of option No 2;

—annul the decision of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Infrastructure of 20 July 2023 cancelling the negotiated procedure (‘Negotiated procedure 06D40/2023/M028’);

—rule that the EUROPARC consortium must receive compensation in respect of the harm suffered as a result of those unlawful decisions;

—order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, which is subdivided into three parts.

1.The first part, alleging failure to state reasons for the contested decisions. The applicants claim that the contested acts do not contain the factual and legal grounds which led the Parliament to cancel the negotiated procedure. They add that the contested acts also fail to specify whether the Parliament made a final decision concerning the choice of option No 2 ‘Renovation of the building to meet future environmental standards while retaining its functionality and preserving its architectural design’.

2.The second part, alleging manifest error of assessment, in that the Parliament did not make a final decision concerning the cancellation of the project submitted by the applicants and that that project meets the Parliament’s future energy and environmental needs.

3.The third part, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, in that the Parliament was in negotiations with the applicants for several months with a view to concluding the contract for architectural services, and departed from the course of action which it had itself set by suddenly cancelling the negotiated procedure five days after the applicants submitted their tender.