IT 715

De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Griekse volhardendheid (in een serie)

Gerecht EU 15 maart 2012, zaak T-236/09 (Evropaïki Dynamiki tegen Europese Commissie)

In navolging van IT 59. en IT 613. In steekwoorden, samenvatting volgt: Aanbestedingsrecht. Openbare aanbestedingsprocedure. Niet-contractuele aansprakelijkheid.

External service provision for development, studies and support of information systems. Rejection of a tenderer’s bids. Obligation to state reasons. Equal treatment. Transparency. Manifest error of assessment.


117    The applicant claims that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment when evaluating its tender for lot 2, in relation to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth evaluation criteria.

118    In that regard, suffice it to say, as does the Commission, that even if the applicant’s tender had received the maximum number of points for all the award criteria it would not have been awarded the contract for lot 2 since its quality/price ratio would have still been below that of the first three tenderers selected.

119    It is apparent from the table sent by the Commission to the applicant with the letter of 3 April 2009 that the applicant’s tender for lot 2 obtained a score of 754.03 in respect of the quality criteria and that the total price of the tender was [EUR] 300.50. If the applicant had obtained the maximum score in respect of the qualitative criteria, that is to say 1000, the quality/price ratio of its tender would have been 3.33. That quality/price ratio would still have been lower than that obtained by the third tenderer selected, whose quality/price ratio was 3.57.

120    It follows that, even if the evaluation committee had made an error in its assessment of the applicant’s tender for lot 2, that error would have no bearing on the Commission’s ultimate finding that the applicant’s tender did not obtain a score in respect of the quality/price ratio that was sufficient for it to be awarded the contract. Such an error would be immaterial and accordingly would not be sufficient to warrant annulment of the contested decision since, in the particular circumstances of the case, it could not have had a decisive effect on the outcome (see, to that effect, Case T‑126/99 Graphischer Maschinenbau v Commission [2002] ECR II‑2427, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).

121    Consequently, all the arguments relating to the existence of manifest errors of assessment concerning lot 2 must be rejected as ineffective.

122    The second plea must therefore be rejected.

123    It follows from the foregoing that, since all the pleas in law relied upon by the applicant in support of the claim for annulment have been unsuccessful, that claim must be dismissed in its entirety.