NTT Data Belgique and Others vs EIB

This case concerned a dispute over the rejection of a tender submitted by a consortium led by NTT Data Belgique in a procurement procedure initiated by the European Investment Bank (EIB).

TLDR:

• NTT Data Belgique and others sought suspension of the EIB's decision to reject their tender.
• The EIB rejected the tender due to concerns over abnormally low prices.
• The General Court dismissed the application for interim measures.

The applicants, NTT Data Belgique, Sopra Steria PSF Luxembourg SA, UniSystems Luxembourg Sàrl, and Netcompany – Intrasoft, submitted a tender in response to a call for tenders (CFT-1699) by the European Investment Bank (EIB) for IT consultancy services. The EIB rejected their tender, citing concerns over abnormally low prices.

On 22 March 2024, the applicants filed an action for annulment of the EIB's decision and requested interim measures to suspend the decision and the signing of the contract until a final judgment was delivered. The EIB argued that the interim measures should be dismissed and that the applicants should pay the costs.

The General Court examined the conditions for granting interim measures, focusing on whether there was a prima facie case and whether the measures were urgent to avoid serious and irreparable harm. The court found that the applicants did not establish a prima facie case, as the EIB's decision was based on legitimate concerns about the tender's reliability and the ability to perform the contract.

The court noted that the EIB had a broad margin of assessment in procurement procedures and that the applicants failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the low prices. The court also found that the balance of competing interests favored the EIB, as the interim measures could disrupt the EIB's essential tasks and IT services.

Consequently, the General Court dismissed the application for interim measures and canceled the previous order that had suspended the signing of the contract. The costs were reserved for future determination.

Legal representatives: List individually all solicitors and barristers here

Judicial Panel: V. Di Bucci, M. van der Woude

Case Citation Reference: T-161/24 R