Action brought on 26 September 2012 - Gaumina UAB v European Institute for Gender Equality
(Case T-424/12)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Parties
Applicant: Gaumina UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: Saulius Aviža, lawyer)
Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13;
oblige the European Institute for Gender Equality to continue the procurement process and evaluate the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
First plea in law, concerning infringement of the principle of transparency and the groundless nature of the decision
The applicant maintains that, in carrying out tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13 concerning services devoted to communication activities, under Regulation No 1605/2002,
2 Regulation No 2342/2002, Regulation No 1922/2006 and the terms of the call for tenders, the European Institute for Gender Equality infringed the requirements to inform a participant of the reasons and grounds for rejection of his tender (Article 100(2) of Regulation No 1605/2002) and the principle of transparency (Article 89(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002), and, relying on subjective and abstract criteria for evaluating the technical offers, it rejected the applicant's tender and did not indicate the reasons for such a decision, or the number of points that was awarded, even after an additional request for information.
Second plea in law, concerning the incorrect evaluation of the applicant's tender and the groundless nature of the decision to reject the tender
In the applicant's submission, the European Institute for Gender Equality evaluated its technical offer wrongly and infringed the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination (Article 89(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002) when it rejected its tender because the technical part thereof was accorded an insufficient number of points, although the tender met the requirements of the terms of the call for tenders and the contract's objectives and goals. The fact that the tender was evaluated wrongly is also corroborated by the fact that the defendant did not present any grounds and explanations concerning the individual points awarded for the evaluation criteria of the technical offers and information as to how many points were awarded to the technical offer overall.
____________1 - Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).2 - Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).3 - Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 9).