A Dutch company claims Dublin Airport's owner 'acted unlawfully' over a €50m tender
Koninklijke Capi-Lux Holding is suing DAA over the award of a lucrative retail contract.
A DUTCH COMPANY’S challenge against a DAA decision to award a €50 million contract to operate electronics stores at Dublin Airport to another company has been admitted to the Commercial Court list.
The action was brought by Koninklijke Capi-Lux Holding BV against DAA and was aimed at having the award of the contract to a rival bidder set aside.
The DAA put out for tender a contract to operate and manage electronics stores at Terminals 1 and 2 at the airport. The contract to operate the stores is due to commence in June and July of this year.
The Dutch firm, which operates electronic stores all over the world, submitted its tender for the contract in early January, but was informed in February that it had been unsuccessful in obtaining the contract.
It was also informed that it had been ranked as the second-placed tenderer.
In its action, the Netherlands-based company claims DAA acted unlawfully and in breach of both Irish and EU law in the manner in which it conducted the competition.
It also claims DAA failed to provide answers to questions it submitted concerning the award of the contact.
In its proceedings against DAA, the Dutch firm seeks various orders, including that the decision to award the contract be quashed and that the decision be remitted back to DAA for reconsideration.
The Dutch firm also seeks various declarations, including that DAA has acted in a manifest error, has acted unreasonably and disproportionately, and took irrelevant considerations into account.
It further seeks declarations that DAA failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision to the applicant. Koninklijke Capi-Lux, represented in court by Eileen Barrington SC, also seeks damages.
Mr Justice Brian McGovern said he was satisfied to admit the action to the fast-track Commercial Court list.
The judge also ruled that the the successful bidder for the tender, Inmotion Entertainment Ltd, should be added as a notice party to the proceedings.
There were no objections to the applications. The matter will return before the court later this month.
