Judgment of the General Court Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition of 26 January 2022, Leonardo v Frontex , T-849/19

• Date: 26 January 2022
• Year: 2022

41

Lastly, the Court rules that a national measure which is intended to protect nature and the landscape

and, to that end, lays down general prohibitions and makes provision for compulsory permits without

laying down sufficiently detailed rules regarding the content, preparation and implementation of

projects is also not covered by Article 3(4) of Directive 2001/42, pursuant to which it is for the Member

States to determine whether plans and programmes, other than those referred to in paragraph 2 of

that article, which set the framework for future development consent of projects, are likely to have

significant environmental effects.

IX. JUDGMENT PREVIOUSLY DELIVERED

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BY THE

INSTITUTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 26 January

2022, Leonardo v Frontex , T-849/19

Public supply contracts – Tendering procedure – Aerial surveillance services – Action for annulment – No

interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility – Non-contractual liability

On 18 October 2019, by contract notice,

82

the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

launched a tendering procedure

83

(‘the contested contract notice’) in order to acquire aerial

surveillance services by the means of Medium Altitude Long Endurance Remotely Piloted Aircraft

System for maritime purposes.

The applicant, Leonardo SpA, a company operating in the aerospace sector, did not participate in the

tendering procedure launched by the contested contract notice.

On 31 May 2020, the tender evaluation committee submitted its evaluation report to the authorising

officer responsible who then approved the tender evaluation report and signed the contract award

decision (‘the contested award decision’).

The applicant then brought an action before the General Court, first, for annulment of the contested

contract notice and its annexes

84

and the contested award decision and, secondly, for compensation

for the damage it claims to have suffered as a result of the unlawful nature of the call for tenders at

issue.

85

By its judgment, delivered in a chamber sitting in extended composition, the Court dismisses the

applicant’s action in its entirety. The principal feature of the case is that the action for annulment is

directed against a contract notice and its annexes and has been brought by an undertaking which did

not participate in the tendering procedure organised by that notice. The question whether such an

action is admissible is without precedent.

82

Contract notice published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the E uropean Union (OJ 2019/S 202-490010).

83

Tendering procedure FRONTEX/OP/888/2019/JL/CG entitled ‘Remo tely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) for Medium Altitude Long Endurance

Maritime Aerial Surveillance’.

84

Article 263 TFEU.

85

Article 268 TFEU.