Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-20/20 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, March 06, 2020

• Resolution Date: March 06, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-20/20

Action brought on 14 January 2020 - Intertranslations (Intertransleïsions) Metafraseis v Parliament

(Case T-20/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intertranslations (Intertransleïsions) Metafraseis AE (Kallithea Attikis, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 5 December 2019 to award it second place in the call for tenders TRA/EU19/2019: Translation services lot 5 (translation into English);

order the European Parliament to pay the applicant’s damages suffered as a result of the loss of the contract;

alternatively, order the European Parliament to pay the applicant’s damages suffered as a result of the loss of opportunity;

order the European Parliament to pay the applicant’s legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging insufficient motivation - Infringement of the obligation to state reasons, infringement of Article 296 of the TFEU, of Annex I, Chapter 1, Common provisions, Section 1, point 31 of the Financial Regulation (EU) 2018/1046 ¹ and of Article 89 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/715 ² - Infringement of an essential procedural requirement and of the right to an effective remedy.

The applicant argues that the motivation communicated is insufficient in concreto, since it is not specific as to which deficiency of each sub-criterion corresponds to the points deducted for each alleged individual translation mistake. Therefore, the applicant can neither understand what the mistake exactly concerns, nor is it in a position to analyse and counter argue correspondingly.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

The evaluation contains a number of manifest errors of assessment in relation to the sub-criteria “Style - Clarity”, “Fluency - Punctuation” as well as “presentation and accuracy” and “mistranslation”.

Third plea in law, alleging unclear evaluation criteria - Use of the same criterion twice - Award of points for the same characteristic of the tenders under two different evaluation criteria.

One error type is unclear, since no specific analysis is included in the glossary of the tender specification and does not constitute...