Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-556/11: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-379/16 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: C.-N. Dede, D. Papadopoulou, Δικηγόροι)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

Set aside the judgment of the General Court under Appeal as per the rejection of the new plea in law related to the acceptance of an offer including a discount.

Annul the award decision of EUIPO in so far as it accepted IECI’s tender, which included a discount contrary to the requirements of the tender specifications.

Order EUIPO to pay the Appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure and the current Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants base their appeal on the fact that the General Court misinterpreted the Defendant’s arguments and distorted the evidence provided by EUIPO, following the Order of the General Court of measures of inquiry, which was also confirmed during the hearing by EUIPO. Such evidence demonstrated that the winning tenderer’s offer included a discount (which was offered irregularly) and that such discount was considered in the course of the evaluation. By offering a discount, the first winning tenderer included in its tender a variant in relation to the proposed price, contrary to the tender specifications (as complemented by the provision of answers by the Contracting authority to the questions of the tenderers). The General Court, specifically, erred in law in considering that EUIPO allegedly did not take into account the discount provided by the winning tender for the purposes of the financial assessment and, therefore, that because such discount was allegedly not taken into account, that EUIPO did not infringe the tender specifications.

____________