Case T‑536/11

(publication by extracts)

European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Others

v

European Commission

(Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of computing services for the development and maintenance of software, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications — Ranking of a tenderer’s bid in the cascade for different lots and ranking of the bids of other tenderers — Obligation to state reasons — Award criterion — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber), 8 July 2015

1.      EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits

2.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — Assessment having regard to information available to the applicant at the time the action brought

(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2))

3.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — No obligation on the awarding authority to communicate the report of the evaluation committee and the accepted tenders to a tenderer which submitted a tender ranked lower in the cascade  — No obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the accepted tender and that of the tenderer ranked lower in the cascade

(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3))

4.      EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Obligation to comply with the principle of transparency — Scope

(Council Regulation No 1605/2002, 100(2))

5.      EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Actions against decisions of the awarding authority to award public contracts — Audi alteram partem rule — Reconciliation with the protection of business secrets — Obligation to ensure confidentiality and the right to compliance with business secrecy in relation to information contained in the files communicated by the parties — Conditions — Reconciliation of the said obligation with the requirements of effective judicial protection and respect for the defence rights of parties to the dispute in order to guarantee the right to a fair trial

(Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2))

6.      Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Application for annulment of a decision closely linked to an earlier decision — Dismissal of the application for annulment of the earlier decision entailing dismissal of the application for annulment of the subsequent decision

(Art. 263 TFEU)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 33)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 36-39, 41)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 40, 53, 56, 57)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 49)

5.      In the context of an action brought against a decision taken by a contracting authority in relation to a contract award procedure, the adversarial principle does not mean that the parties are entitled to unlimited and absolute access to all of the information relating to the award procedure concerned. On the contrary, that right of access must be balanced against the right of other economic operators to the protection of their confidential information and their business secrets. The principle of the protection of confidential information and of business secrets must be observed in such a way as to reconcile it with the requirements of effective legal protection and the rights of defence of the parties to the dispute and, in the case of judicial review, in such a way as to ensure that the proceedings as a whole accord with the right to a fair trial.

(see para. 50)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 378)