Action brought on 4 December 2023 – Apoio XXI – Centro de Apoio Psico-Pedagógico v EMCDDA

(Case T-1150/23)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Apoio XXI – Centro de Apoio Psico-Pedagógico Lda (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal) (represented by: J. Freitas Peixoto, lawyer)

Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision contained in the letter from the EMCDDA of 2 October 2023 awarding the public contract arising from the public procurement procedure ‘FC.23.EXO.0010.2.0 – Coordination and provision of simultaneous interpretation services for the EMCDDA (Lot 1 & 2)’ to ONCALL – Europa Language Services SPRL on the ground that it infringes Article 167 of, and point 29.3 of Annex I to, the Financial Regulation, and following that exclude the tender ranked in first place and award the contract (in two lots) to the applicant;

annul the decision contained in the letter from the EMCDDA of 2 October 2023 awarding the public contract arising from the public procurement procedure ‘FC.23.EXO.0010.2.0 – Coordination and provision of simultaneous interpretation services for the EMCDDA (Lot 1 & 2)’ to ONCALL – Europa Language Services SPRL on the basis of Article 296 TFEU and Article 170(3) of, and points 31.2 and 23.1 of Annex I to, the Financial Regulation on the ground that it is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, and following that order that the information and elements sought be provided;

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the lawyer’s fees to be determined at a later date, because, at this stage, they are not yet proven and established.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 167 and Article 170(1) of, and point 29.3 of Annex I to, Regulation (EU, Euratom) 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 (‘the Financial Regulation’) inasmuch as, in view of the elements provided by the EMCDDA at the applicant’s request, the tender ranked in first place should never have been accepted for evaluation and subsequent award because it does not comply with the selection criteria set out in the tender documents.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 170(3) of, and point 31.2 of Annex I to, the Financial Regulation, arising from a failure to state reasons in the decision of the EMCDDA, inasmuch as the EMCDDA did not make available to the applicant, despite the latter’s request to do so, the information and elements needed to enable the applicant to understand whether the tender ranked in first place complies with all the minimum requirements, selection criteria and minimum quality levels provided for in the award criterion, bearing in mind that the tender ranked in first place submitted a price (for both lots) that is more than 50% lower than the price in the tender submitted by the applicant, which was ranked second in that tendering procedure.

____________