Appeal brought on 8 April 2014 by European Dynamics Belgium and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-158/12 European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA

(Case C-173/14 P)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA)Form of order soughtThe appellants claim that the Court sh

European Dynamics Lux

embourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena S

y

stimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)Other party t

o the proceedings: European Medi

cines Agency (EMA)Form of order soug

htThe appellants claim that the Court should:Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 in Case Τ-158/12 and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;Order the E

within the technical specifications. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal the distortion of their plea in law and of the arguments put forward in their written pleadings, and also failure to state reasons.The second ground of appeal concerns the assessment of a qualitative selection crit

erion as an award criterion. In respect of this ground, the appel

lants challenge by this appeal an error of assessment, misinterpretation and misapplication of European Union law, and a failure to state reasons.The third ground of appeal concerns the assessment of the experience acquired from previous contracts with the same award criteria. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal misinterpretation

and misapplication of European Union law, an error of assessment and failure to state reasons.The fourth ground of appeal concerns the assessment of a criterion of which objective marking was not possible. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal a manifest error of a

ssessment, misapplication of European Union law and failure to state reasons.