Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 8 January 2010 - Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-9/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

annul OPOCE's decision to reject the applicant's bid, filed in response to the open call for tenders AO 10224 for the "Provision of electronic publications"¹ Lot 2, communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated 29 October 2009 and all further related decisions of OPOCE including the one to award the contact to the successful contractors;

annul OPOCE's decision to award contracts to Siveco/Intrasoft and Engineering/Intrasofitn, the field of the abovementioned call for tenders Lot 3, communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated 29 October 2009, in case one company is directly or indirectly associated to both framework contracts;

order the defendant to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 260 760;

order the defendant to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant's decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender for services of electronic publications (AO 10224) (Lot 2) and to award the contract to the successful contractor (Lot 2 and 3). The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.

In support of its claims the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

First, the applicant argues that the defendant committed various and manifest errors of assessment and that it refused to provide sufficient justification or explanation to the applicant in breach of the financial regulation² and its implementing rules as well as in breach of directive 2004/18/EC³ and of Article 253 EC.

Second, it contends that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to state reasons in respect of the applicant's bid as the negative considerations given by evaluation committee were vague, unsubstantiated wrong and unfounded.

____________

¹ - OJ 2009/S 109-156511

² - Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

³ - Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)