| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/34 |
Action brought on 25 January 2022 — Esedra v Parliament
(Case T-46/22)
(2022/C 109/45)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Esedra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Vastmans, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
| — | declare the action for annulment admissible and well founded; consequently;
|
| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action against the decision of the European Parliament of 26 November 2021, rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant under tender procedure No PE PERS 2021 027 for the full management of the early childhood care facility of the European Parliament at Rue Wayenberg in Brussels, and awarding the contract to SAS People & Baby, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, infringement of Article 170 TFEU, infringement of Article 16.1. of the tender specifications, infringement of general principles of law and, more specifically, of the principle of detailed and exhaustive examination, the principle that formal reasons should be stated and the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, and manifest error of assessment. |
| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3.13. of the tender specifications, infringement of the Decree of 21 February 2019 aimed at reinforcing the quality and accessibility of early childhood care in the French Community and of the Decree of 2 May 2019 of the Government of the French Community laying down the system of authorisation and subsidies for crèches, childcare services and independent (co-)carers of children and/or of the Decree of 22 November 2013 of the Flemish Government laying down the approval conditions and the quality policy for family and group care of babies and toddlers, infringement of general principles of law and, more specifically, of the principles of detailed and exhaustive examination and patere legem quam ipse fecisti, and a manifest error of assessment. |