Key facts of the case:
Appeal — Public service contracts — Software development and maintenance services — Decision to rank the applicant’s tender in fourth position for the purposes of the cascade contract — Obligation to state reasons
Outcome of the case:
In the light of all these considerations, I consider that EUIPO’s third ground of appeal must be dismissed.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, and without prejudging the merits of the other grounds of appeal, I propose that the Court dismiss the third ground as unfounded. The costs are to be reserved.