Action brought on 22 mars 2024 – NTT Data Belgique and Others v EIB

(Case T-161/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: NTT Data Belgique (Brussels, Belgium), Sopra Steria PSF Luxembourg SA (Leudelange, Luxembourg), UniSystems Luxembourg Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Netcompany – Intrasoft (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, L. Lence de Frutos, R. Fernández de la Cruz and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the EIB’s decision of 4 March 2024 rejecting OMNIA Consortium’s bid for procurement procedure with reference CFT-1699 - IT Consultancy for EIB-specific applications (TAILOR) as being abnormally low;

order the EIB to pay all the legal fees and costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the EIB by basing its decision to reject the tender (i) on the salaries paid by the applicants and (ii) on the margins generated by OMNIA consortium. Furthermore, the contested decision is inconsistent with the EIB’s own criterion under other similar and recent procurement procedures where almost identical offers were proposed and accepted.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality on the grounds that (i) the exclusion of the tender, based solely on the prices offered by OMNIA consortium, is disproportionate; and (ii) the EIB does not seem to have taken into account other factors that are relevant in the light of the services provided under the contract to be concluded following the procurement procedure.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons and an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. On the one hand, the contested decision does not contain the reasoning followed by the EIB to adopt such measure. On the other hand, the request for clarifications submitted by the EIB on 1 September 2023 does not adequately explain why the EIB considered the on-site rates proposed by the applicants to be abnormally low; therefore, the applicants were not in a position fully and effectively to show that the tender is genuine.

____________