Corte di giustizia UE/2026

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 7 July 2026 ( * ) ( Actions for annulment – Public procurement – Tendering procedure – Provision of computer-based testing services and related services for the selection of EU staff – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] notice – Implicit decision not to acquire on-site computer-based testing services – Decision to award the contract – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility ) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑670/24 and T‑607/25, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA], established in Chieti (Italy), represented by F. Sciaudone, D. Fesler and G. Lovaste, lawyers, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by S. Romoli and T. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as Agents, defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], R. da [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur) and H. Cassagnabère, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written part of the procedure, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its actions under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, the applicant, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA], seeks the annulment of several acts adopted in the course of tendering procedure EC-EPSO/2024/OP/0016 entitled ‘Delivery of computer-based testing capacity and related services for the selection of EU staff’. Background to the dispute 2 The applicant, a limited liability company governed by Italian law, operates in the field of testing services for personnel selection procedures. In particular, it has developed a digital solution for the delivery of on-site tests relying on computer devices and, in that connection, on putting electronic tablets at the disposal of candidates in examination centres. Such a solution is not suitable for remote tests. 3 On 17 January 2022, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 022587-2022 was published with the aim of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EPSO) acquiring solution services for tests organised remotely at all stages of personnel selection procedures. Similarly, a ‘New competition model’ favouring online tests was drawn up in January 2023 in order, inter alia, to meet the requirements of ‘modernity, flexibility and EU’s [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, address ‘the vulnerability of … in-person testing [in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic]’, and take into account the fact that ‘[the solution of] remote testing is the delivery mode of the future and responds to the evolution in the market of large-scale staff selections[, since] it is … accessible from wherever the candidate is[,] … entails no travelling costs[, is greener and more modern,] in line with digitalisation of the institutions[, and is accessible to all]’. 4 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023, due to technical difficulties, relating in particular to connecting to the testing platform and the availability of the IT helpdesk, encountered by candidates in the course of the selection procedures organised in the performance of that contract, and the concerns connected to the protection of their personal data, EPSO decided to reschedule certain tests and suspend temporarily the publication of new selection procedures ‘until … the right conditions exist’, ‘to reappraise the automated proctoring’ and to examine ‘other possible and viable solutions to ensure smooth candidate experience’. 5 On 16 January 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EDPS), in an audit report regarding the remote organisation of selection procedures, put forward a number of recommendations in order to improve the protection of personal data and the candidates’ right to privacy, and request that EPSO carry out a thorough assessment of the proportionality and necessity of remote solutions. Similarly, by decision of 22 January 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] invited EPSO, first, to assess the possibility of ensuring fair testing conditions for all candidates as regards the technical and physical requirements for remote tests and, where it is impossible to remedy the negative impacts of such requirements and ensure such conditions, to reflect on alternative solutions, including allowing candidates to sit the tests in physical testing centres. Secondly, it requested that EPSO provide candidates with a sufficient level of information regarding obtaining assistance, in particular in the case of technical problems encountered during tests. 6 In that context, by a communication of 2 April 2024, EPSO announced the unilateral termination, in February 2024, of the existing test delivery framework contract and its desire to intensify its efforts to find, for the long term, ‘[a solution] that would address the main technical difficulties observed previously [even if] no perfect system exists’. In its 2023 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], of 27 May 2024, EPSO set implementing the recommendations of the EDPS and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as priorities for 2024, in order to improve the remote organisation of tests. By a communication of 19 June 2024, it announced a remote selection procedure that was a ‘noteworthy improvement compared to the [situation] in 2023’, even if some ‘technical complaints’ might have been noted. By a communication of 26 June 2024, it restated its desire to use a computer-based test delivery solution. It also announced its intention to launch a new tendering procedure, in which remote, computer-based testing would remain the default testing method, while an on-site option would be provided for as an alternative where providing such services remotely would be impossible or inappropriate. 7 On 16 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024, by publishing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024 in the supplement to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ S 202/2024), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by EPSO, launched tendering procedure EC-EPSO/2024/OP/0016, split into two lots, for the award of multiple framework service contracts in cascade for the delivery of computer-based tests and related services for the selection of EU staff. 8 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2.1 and 5.1 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024, the purpose, or subject, of that call for tenders is defined as the acquisition of services ‘[consisting] of hosting and delivering EPSO tests on a secure online platform to be accessed by candidates connecting remotely’. It was also stated that ‘the provider [had to] offer both online and on-site delivery capability’. 9 Similarly, for both lots, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1.4 and 1.5 of Part 1, entitled ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] specifications’, of the tender specifications supplementary to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024 (‘the tender specifications’) provided that ‘variants (alternatives to the model solution described in the tender specifications) [were] not allowed for any lot’ and that ‘the services covered under the framework contracts [would] be performed and delivered remotely’. Moreover, for both lots, Section 1.1 of Part 2, entitled ‘Technical specifications’, of the tender specifications also defined the purpose of the call for tenders as being ‘to conclude multiple framework contracts in cascade for the delivery of computer-based testing capacity and related services for the selection of EU staff’. In addition, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2.1 and 2.5 of the tender specifications, the services sought were described as being ‘related to the delivery of a wide range of computer-based tests, including: an end-to-end testing platform for delivery of tests, online, using the candidates’ own devices’, and subject to remote invigilation. 10 On 22 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024 was subject to a first amendment, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 638461-2024, published in the supplement to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ S 206/2024), which postponed the deadline for the submission of tenders until 29 November 2024. In particular, the following text was removed from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2.1 and 5.1 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024: ‘the provider must offer both online and on-site delivery capability’, with the result that the subject of the call for tenders in question was, from that point on, defined only by the statement that it concerned the acquisition of services ‘[consisting] of hosting and delivering EPSO tests on a secure online platform to be accessed by candidates connecting remotely’. 11 The applicant states that it had become aware, by the publication of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 638461-2024, of an ‘underlying strategic decision’ of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to acquire exclusively remote computer-based testing services for the vast majority of tests which EPSO would organise in the future, amounting, in essence, to an implicit decision not to acquire on-site computer-based testing services going forward (‘the contested strategic decision’). 12 On 20 November 2024, the applicant asked the contracting authority, in a question submitted under the ‘Questions & Answers’ section of the tendering procedure at issue, whether such a change meant that the technical specifications had to be interpreted as excluding the delivery of on-site tests from the subject of that procedure. On the same day, the contracting authority answered the applicant by stating that that subject was ‘the delivery of computer-based testing capacity and related services for the selection of EU staff’ and that, ‘according to Section 1.5 of the tender specifications[,] Part 1: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that: “the services covered under the framework contracts will be performed and delivered remotely”’. 13 On 21 November 2024, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 638461-2024, was subject to a second amendment, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 709442-2024, published in the supplement to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ S 227/2024) (‘the contested contract notice’), which postponed the deadline for the submission of tenders until 6 December 2024. In that context, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2.1 and 5.1 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 638461-2024, were not amended. On that date, the applicant had not submitted a tender. 14 On 6 June 2025, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decided to award multiple framework contracts in cascade to two tenderers selected in respect of the first lot of the tendering procedure in question, entitled ‘LOT 1: Competition for officials OJ S 136/2025 18/07/2025’. That decision, bearing reference No 406222-2025 – Result, was published on 25 June 2025 in the supplement to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ S 119/2025) and, subsequently, was amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 469807-2025 – Result, published on 18 July 2025 in the supplement to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ S 136/2025) (‘the contested award decision’). Procedure and forms of order sought 15 The applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        annul the contested contract notice; –        annul the contested award decision; –        annul the contested strategic decision; –        order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 16 In the pleas of inadmissibility raised under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the actions as inadmissible; –        order the applicant to pay the costs. 17 In its observations on the pleas of inadmissibility, the applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should reject those pleas and therefore open the oral part of the procedure or, in the alternative, reserve making a decision on them for the final judgment. It also claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should be ordered to pay the costs. Law 18 Having heard the parties, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has decided to join [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑670/24 and T‑607/25 for the purposes of the present order, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 19 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 130(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may issue a decision on inadmissibility without going to the substance of the case, if the defendant makes such an application. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 130(7) of those rules, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to decide on the application as soon as possible or, where special circumstances so justify, reserve its decision on that application until it rules on the substance of the case. 20 In the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has requested that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rule on the inadmissibility of the actions. In those circumstances, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], considering that it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file, has decided that it is necessary to rule on that request without taking further steps in the proceedings. 21 First, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the contested contract notice is not a challengeable act for the purposes of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU since it is, in its view, an act which is not final, does not adversely affect the applicant and, therefore, does not produce any binding legal effects such as to affect the applicant’s interests. In that regard, it adds that the applicant does not provide the services covered by that notice, namely services consisting of organising remote tests on a secure platform to be accessed by candidates connecting with their own devices, and that it cannot therefore claim to have been excluded from the award procedure for the contract in question. 22 Secondly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the applicant, who has not submitted a tender, is accordingly not an actual tenderer and has neither an interest in bringing proceedings nor the standing to bring them in respect of the contested contract notice and the contested award decision. In that regard, in the light of the broad discretion of the contracting authority to define the subject of a contract according to its needs, the procurement documents in the present case do not contain any discriminatory specifications. In the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s view, if the applicant has not submitted a tender, it is solely because it does not provide the remote services in question. Accordingly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argues that the latter would not obtain any advantage whatsoever from the annulment of that notice or that decision and cannot rely on a hypothetical interest or that of a third party. In addition, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that, without having proved that it operates in the market for those services, the applicant cannot be either directly or individually affected by those non-regulatory acts. Furthermore, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the correction of an oversight in the description of those services, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024, examined in the light of the clear definition of those services in the technical and administrative specifications, does not alter that conclusion. 23 Thirdly, as regards the contested strategic decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that no decision producing binding legal effects exists for the purposes of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU. Indeed, the award procedure for the contract in question cannot, in its view, be interpreted as a decision of EPSO to use exclusively remote tests for future selection procedures or as an announcement that it will not use on-site tests in the future. Consequently, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the action in Case T‑670/24, as regards that decision, must be rejected as inadmissible, principally, in so far as it is directed against a hypothetical act whose existence has not been proven by the applicant and, in the alternative, on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure, on account of insufficient precision in the identification of that act. 24 The applicant submits, by contrast, that the contested contract notice, the contested strategic decision and the contested award decision are challengeable acts which produce binding legal effects that directly and individually harm its interests since their substance and the intent of the defendant reveal the existence of a final and unequivocal decision to exclude those providing on-site testing solutions in addition to the technical services and solutions which they offer. Those acts, which were – in its view – adopted on the basis of the discriminatory tender specifications have thus altered its legal situation, by definitively depriving it, in the light of the interpretation of the tender specifications, of the possibility of submitting a tender in respect of the services of delivering computer-based tests and related services for the selection of EU staff, covered by the subject of the call for tenders in question. That exclusion, it argues, also applies going forward, given the size of EPSO’s financial commitment in the context of that contract, its duration and, accordingly, EPSO’s decision to rely almost exclusively on remote services. According to the applicant, the annulment of those acts would oblige the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to reconsider the nature of the services in question and, since it is required to accept on-site or hybrid testing solutions in the light of the content of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024, the applicant would thus be allowed to submit a tender, including in a consortium. To find the actions admissible would therefore ensure, inter alia, its right to effective judicial protection. 25 In particular as regards the contested contract notice and the contested award decision, the applicant maintains that the removal from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024 of the text ‘online and on-site delivery capability’ from the description of the contract cannot be regarded as a mere error given the limits of a remote solution as examined in the EDPS audit report of 16 January 2024 and in a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 22 January 2024, the technical deficiencies reported during previous remote selection procedures and EPSO’s commitment, of 26 June 2024, regarding an on-site solution. In its view, that removal and the prohibition on variants imply that that notice and that decision are based on discriminatory and disproportionate technical specifications which exclude, without justification, alternative technical solutions. According to the applicant, that goes against its initial right, as a potential tenderer operating on the market concerned, to participate in the tendering procedure in question. It argues that, since, in those circumstances, it is directly and individually affected by that notice and that decision, it has the right to challenge them despite not submitting a tender and despite the broad discretion granted to the contracting authority in that regard. 26 As regards the contested strategic decision, the applicant states that the restriction to remote testing services, imposed after the tendering procedure was launched, attests to a decision of EPSO to use exclusively remote, computer-based tests for the majority of its selection procedures. According to the applicant, the existence of such a decision is, for that matter, confirmed in an email from the director of EPSO of 26 May 2025, with the result that the applicant’s interest regarding this specific legal situation is established. The contested contract notice and the contested award decision 27 It must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only in so far as that person has an interest in having the contested act annulled. Such an interest requires that the annulment of that act must be capable, in itself, of having legal consequences and that the action may therefore, through its outcome, procure an advantage to the party which brought it (see judgment of 20 December 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑268/16 P, EU:C:2017:1001, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). 28 In that regard, participation in a contract award procedure may, in principle, validly constitute a condition which must be fulfilled before the person concerned can show an interest in obtaining the contract at issue or that he risks suffering harm as a result of the allegedly unlawful nature of the decision to award that contract (see judgment of 28 November 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] e [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others , C‑328/17, EU:C:2018:958, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited). However, where an undertaking has not submitted a tender because of certain specifications in the documents relating to the invitation to tender or in the tender specifications which it could not meet, which manifestly have the aim or effect of ousting it from the tender by making it impossible for that undertaking to provide all the services requested, it would be too much to require it to submit, before bringing proceedings in respect of those specifications, a tender in the award procedure for the contract at issue, even though its chances of being awarded the contract are non-existent by reason of the existence of those specifications (see, to that effect, judgments of 28 November 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] e [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others , C‑328/17, EU:C:2018:958, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited, and of 26 January 2022, Leonardo v Frontex , T‑849/19, EU:T:2022:28, paragraph 26). 29 Furthermore, since it is only in exceptional cases that a right to bring proceedings is given to an operator which has not submitted a tender, it cannot be regarded as excessive to require that operator to demonstrate that the clauses in the call for tenders make it impossible to submit a tender (judgments of 28 November 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] e [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others , C‑328/17, EU:C:2018:958, paragraph 53, and of 26 January 2022, Leonardo v Frontex , T‑849/19, EU:T:2022:28, paragraph 27). 30 In that context, in order also to ensure respect for the right to effective judicial protection of that operator, it is necessary to make a detailed assessment of whether the above has been demonstrated, taking account of all the relevant information characterising the context of the case brought before it (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 November 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] e [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others , C‑328/17, EU:C:2018:958, paragraph 55). In that respect, account may be taken, inter alia, of the reasons for which the contracting authority considered that it was preferable to acquire certain services and the freedom of the contracting authority in the assessment of its needs (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 November 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] e [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others , C‑328/17, EU:C:2018:958, paragraph 57). 31 In that regard, account should be taken of the fact that the purpose of the procurement procedure is to meet the needs of the contracting authority under the best possible conditions. Consequently, the contracting authority must be able to define the subject of the contract freely (judgment of 13 September 2011, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Nul v EMSA , T‑8/09, EU:T:2011:461, paragraph 68, and order of 7 December 2020, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑536/19, not published, EU:T:2020:588, paragraph 45). Therefore, according to settled case-law, a contracting authority has broad discretion with regard to the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender. It therefore has that extensive discretion in determining both the content and the application of the rules applicable to the award of a contract, for its own account, following a call for tenders, taking into account the nature, subject and specific features particular to each contract (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 September 2011, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EIB , T‑461/08, EU:T:2011:494, paragraph 137, and of 26 January 2017, TV1 v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑700/14, not published, EU:T:2017:35, paragraph 98). In particular, that discretion of the contracting authority in the formulation of the technical specifications of a procurement contract is justified by the fact that that authority is best placed to know which supplies it needs and to determine the requirements necessary to achieve the desired results (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 25 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑413/17, EU:C:2018:865, paragraphs 29 and 30). 32 In addition, the stage of assessing and establishing needs is, as a general rule, unilateral in the case of the award of a normal public contract. The contracting authority does no more than launch a call for tenders setting out the specifications which it has itself drawn up (judgments of 4 June 2020, Remondis , C‑429/19, EU:C:2020:436, paragraph 33, and of 26 January 2022, Leonardo v Frontex , T‑849/19, EU:T:2022:28, paragraph 32). 33 Nevertheless, the applicable legislation sets certain limits that the contracting authority must comply with. In particular, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 17.1 of Annex I to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ L, 2024/2509) requires that the technical specifications afford equal access of economic operators to the procurement procedure and not have the effect of creating unjustified obstacles to the opening up of public procurement to competition. 34 As the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice has held, the principles of equality of treatment, non-discrimination and transparency are of crucial importance so far as concerns technical specifications, in the light of the risks of discrimination related either to the choice of specifications or to their formulation (see, by analogy, judgment of 25 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑413/17, EU:C:2018:865, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). 35 It is in the light of those considerations that it must be ascertained whether, in the present case, the applicant has established that it was prevented from submitting a tender because of terms and technical specifications in the contested contract notice and the tender specifications which, as it claims, relate to the methods of testing organised remotely and discriminate against it, and therefore manifestly have either the aim or the effect of ousting it from the tender by making it impossible for that applicant to provide all the services requested and, accordingly, whether it has established that it has a legal interest in bringing proceedings. 36 First, it must be noted that, in respect of the technical specifications in the tender specifications, the tendering procedure in question was justified by its conformity with the new competition model designed, in particular, to reduce the length of selection procedures, consistent with the ‘principles [of] precision ([by] using the right type of tests for the right type of profiles), agility ([by] being adaptable to EU Institutions’ evolving needs) and speed ([by] keeping selection processes as short as possible)’ and with the aim of improving them ‘[by transitioning, over time,] from paper-based to computer-based testing in test centres, then to fully remote testing’. In addition, noted therein is the objective of ‘safeguarding the confidentiality and integrity of candidate data’, by ‘exploring opportunities to expand testing options to reach a broader candidate pool EU-wide and adapting to candidates with special needs’. In addition, the services sought had to include information and technical support in respect of those services and the lowest possible technical requirements for accessing the platform, with particular attention to complying with the applicable rules within the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerning artificial intelligence and the protection of personal data, and the setting up of an IT support service accessible during the tests. 37 It is apparent from those elements, assessed in the light of the more general factual context of which the tendering procedure in question forms part, as outlined in paragraphs 3 to 6 above, that the subject of the contested contract notice and the technical specifications of the tender specifications were defined by EPSO in a manner that included the provision of reasons and in a context known to the applicant: namely the gradual and considered redefining by EPSO of the scope of its needs as regards the organisation of personnel selection procedures and the development of a new competition model, through an approach to evaluation staggered over several years, marked by periods of suspension and re-evaluation in order to take account of lessons learned and assess, in the light of the objectives pursued, the appropriateness, necessity and proportionality of a remote method of selection. In addition, that gradual redefining in favour of testing services organised remotely was intended, for EPSO, to improve the conditions of the selection procedures for candidates, remedy the difficulties encountered on site and those identified in respect of remote solutions – in particular those relating to IT and personal data – and, in that context, take into account the recommendations of the EDPS and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 38 Accordingly, given the freedom of the contracting authority when it assesses its needs and defines the subject of a call for tenders on the basis of those needs, it is, prima facie, conceivable that the tendering procedure in question was designed by EPSO in order to respond to legitimate needs, and not as manifestly having the aim or effect of unduly favouring those providing remote testing services or of unduly ousting those providing on-site testing services. 39 Furthermore, in such circumstances and in the light of that freedom of the contracting authority, first, the fact that, in June 2024, EPSO considered organising an on-site alternative cannot be regarded as a definitive statement of its position in that regard since the gradual assessment of its needs could still have led it to take the view that the technical difficulties identified with regard to a remote solution could be overcome. Secondly, the contradictory text in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2.1 and 5.1 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 623940-2024 regarding both online and on-site delivery capability can be regarded as a mere error, given the consistent, specific and clear content of the tender specifications (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above) and, in particular, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1.4 and 1.5 of Part 1, which state that variants will not be allowed and that the services covered are to be performed and delivered remotely, and Section 2.1 of Part 2, which refers to an online testing platform to be accessed by candidates remotely using their own devices. In addition, it must be found that that error was subsequently corrected by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 638461-2024 and, therefore, did not reflect the finalised scope of the contested contract notice. 40 In those circumstances, both factual elements referred to in paragraph 39 above cannot be interpreted prima facie as demonstrating conduct on EPSO’s part which manifestly had the aim or effect of unduly restricting the subject of the call for tenders in question in order to oust operators of on-site services and, specifically, the applicant. 41 Secondly, the applicant has not established that the subject of the contract in question and the technical specifications of the tender specifications were applied to it differently than to other economic operators in the market for delivering computer-based testing capacity and related services for the selection of staff, or, in a more general sense, that it was subject to different treatment although it found itself in a situation analogous to that of other economic operators in that market. In that regard, while it states that it was prevented from participating because of EPSO’s choice to acquire remote testing services, in the light of the considerations in paragraphs 36 to 40 above, that statement cannot in itself demonstrate any discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis the applicant. As EPSO correctly contends, such a statement suggests merely that the fact that it is impossible for the applicant to submit a tender is more attributable to a cause specific to the applicant than to discriminatory technical requirements, that is to say, it is attributable to the fact that it provides testing services in a manner that ‘is not suitable for remote tests’. 42 Thirdly, the applicant cannot reasonably rely on the allegedly discriminatory character of remote testing solutions organised for candidates in competitions, since, according to settled case-law, the person concerned must demonstrate a personal interest in bringing proceedings and an action for annulment may not be brought in the general interest of third parties or for the sake of legality (see, to that effect, order of 28 February 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Informática v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑153/10, EU:T:2012:94, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited). 43 Accordingly, since the applicant has not adduced evidence that the contested contract notice was discriminatory on account of conduct on the part of EPSO which manifestly had the aim or effect of unduly restricting the subject in order to oust operators of on-site services and, specifically, the applicant, the latter clearly has not established an interest in bringing proceedings for the purpose of obtaining the annulment of the contested contract notice and of the contested award decision. The contested strategic decision 44 It must be noted that the contested strategic decision is defined by the applicant as ‘underlying’ the contested contract notice, in that it relates to the acquisition by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and for EPSO of remote computer-based testing services, which, according to the applicant, exclude all other means of organising tests, including, in particular, on-site tests. In that way, that decision is, in reality, indissociable from the subject of the call for tenders in question and, accordingly, indissociable from the contested contract notice. 45 In those circumstances, and for the same reasons as those set out in paragraphs 35 to 43 above, which can be transposed to the contested strategic decision, it must be found that the applicant has also failed to establish an interest in bringing proceedings in respect of that decision. 46 In the light of the foregoing, the heads of claims seeking annulment of the contested contract notice, the contested award decision and the contested strategic decision must be rejected as inadmissible, since the applicant lacks an interest in bringing proceedings in respect of those acts, without it being necessary to rule on the requirements relating to whether the acts are challengeable or on the applicant’s standing, and without it being possible for the applicant to rely on its right to an effective remedy under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 47 of the Charter of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in order to frustrate the application of the rules of admissibility to the actions (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 April 2020, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑560/18 P, EU:C:2020:330, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited, and order of 26 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023, Tomac v Council , T‑48/23, EU:T:2023:684, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). Costs 47 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T ‑ 670/24 and T ‑ 607/25 are joined for the purposes of the order. 2. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible. 3. [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] shall pay the costs. Luxembourg, 7 July 2026. V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] K. Kowalik-Bańczyk [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.