28.10.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/20

(Case T-578/19)

(2019/C 363/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sophia Group (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Schneider and C.-H. de la Vallée Poussin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;

—consequently, annul the decision of the European Parliament to award Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011) to Computer Resources International S.A., which has its registered office at 11 Rue de l’Industrie, 8399 Windhof, Luxembourg;

—if necessary, annul:

—the Parliament’s decision of an unknown date signing the contract relating to Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011);

—the contract concluded with the successful tenderer designated in connection with Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011);

—order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs, including procedural compensation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and points 16.3, 18.2 and 21.1 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts. Under the first plea, the applicant submits that some of the award criteria on the basis of which the successful tenderer was designated fall under the qualitative selection, not the award, even though the selection criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of candidates or tenderers and the award criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of tenders and must make it possible to identify the most economically advantageous tender.

2.Second plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and point 18.2 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts, in that some of the award criteria on the basis of which the successful tenderer for Lot 1 was designated were not linked to the subject matter of the contract and were, at the very least, vague and imprecise even though the award criteria must make it possible to identify the most economically advantageous tender, must be linked to and proportionate with the subject matter of the contract or lot concerned, must be clear and precise and may not leave unconditional freedom of choice in awarding the contract.

3.Third plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and points 18.2 and 18.4 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts, in that the references requested from tenderers in the tender specifications in order to prove their technical and professional capacity to perform Lot 1 were not linked to the subject matter of the contract, were not proportionate and were vague and imprecise. The applicant claims that the selection criteria must be linked and proportionate to the subject matter of the contract in order not to result in a distortion of competition and must be clear and precise.

4.Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 170 of, and points 18.6, 30.2 and 31.1 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the general EU law principles of transparency, competition and equal treatment, infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of sound administration. Those infringements were committed in so far as the ratings attributed to the applicant’s tender and that of the successful tenderer for the contract in the light of nine ‘quality’ award criteria lack adequate reasoning and/or are accompanied only by vague and imprecise comments, whereas any contract award decision must provide an adequate statement of reasons enabling tenderers to know the objective, specific and precise reasons underlying each of the grades attributed to the various tenders and must state the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tenders submitted in the light of the criteria set out in the tender specifications.