Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 29 December 2008 - Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-591/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul EUROSTAT's decision to select the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders for the "Statistical Information Technologies", Lot 2 "SDMX development" and Lot 3 "SDMX support" as second contractor of the cascade mechanism (OJ 2008/S 120-159017) communicated to the applicant by two separate letters dated 17 October 2008 and all further related decisions of EUROSTAT including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

order EUROSTAT to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 4 326 000;

order EUROSTAT 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

By means of its application the applicant seeks the annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of the decisions of EUROSTAT to select the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders for the "Statistical Information Technologies", Lot 2 "SDMX development" and Lot 3 "SDMX support" as second contractor of the cascade mechanism (OJ 2008/S 120-159017) which were communicated to the applicant by two separate letters dated 17 October 2008, as well as the award of damages pursuant to Article 235 EC.

The applicant claims that EUROSTAT committed various manifest errors of assessment, whereas fundamental rules and principles of public procurement have been allegedly infringed by the contracting authority. It is submitted that the evaluation of the applicant's tender was deficient, that EUROSTAT failed to state reasons, denied to address the applicant's detailed administrative appeal and associated observations and that it did not present the results of its internal examination to the applicant.

The applicant further submits that the treatment of the candidates was discriminatory; that the exclusion criteria were not complied with by one of the members of the winning consortium and that Articles 93(1) and 94 of the Financial Regulation were infringed. Moreover, the applicant contends that should the Court find that the defendant infringed the Financial Regulation and/or the principles of transparency and of equal treatment, given the fact that the Court will rule on the application - in all likelihood - after the contract has been fully executed, the applicant requests monetary compensation EUR 4 326 000 from EUROSTAT, corresponding to its estimated gross profit from the public procurement procedure Lot 2 and Lot 3, should it have been awarded the contract.

____________