Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 16 July 2009 - Trasys v Commission

(Case T-277/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Trasys (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: M. Martens and P. Hermant, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the Commission Decision, notified to the applicant by a letter dated 9 June 2009, rejecting the applicant's tender for Lots C and E in the call for tender No 10017 and awarding contract to the successful contractors;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant's decisions to reject its bid submitted for Lots C and E in response to a call for an open tender for support of the Publications Office and its CORDIS unit in the provision of publishing and communication services¹ and to award the contract to the successful contractor.

In support of its claims the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

First, the applicant contends that the defendant infringed the principle of transparency laid down in Articles 100 and 89(1) of the financial regulation² by unreasonably limiting access to essential information and in consequence depriving the applicant of the opportunity to gain a proper understanding of the method used to evaluate the tenders and of the reasons why its tender was rejected.

Second, the applicant alleges that its bid has been subject to a tender assessment methodology which is contrary to the principles set out in Article 89(1) of the financial regulation such as the principles of equal treatment and transparency.

Third, it claims that the tender specifications were not clear enough and that the last clarifications were provided too late by the contracting authority and, as a consequence, the applicant was not in the position to plan its tender and to take into account the way in which the assessment would be made.

Fourth, the applicant submits that its bid has been subject to an unreasonable and disproportional evaluation by the contracting authority leading to the errors of assessment which vitiate the final decision.

____________

¹ - JO 2008/S 242-321376

² - 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)