Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO

(Case T-556/11) ¹

(Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Software development and maintenance services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Classification of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Grounds for exclusion — Conflict of interest — Equal treatment — Duty of diligence — Award criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability — Loss of opportunity)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis and N. Theologou, subsequently by I. Ampazis, and lastly by M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, and subsequently by M. Bambara, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of the decision of EUIPO notified by letter of 11 August 2011 and adopted in tendering procedure AO/029/10 entitled ‘Software development and maintenance services’ rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg and the other related decisions of EUIPO adopted in the context of that procedure, including those awarding the contract to other tenderers, and, second, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), notified by letter of 11 August 2011 and adopted in tendering procedure AO/029/10 entitled ‘Software development and maintenance services’, rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and the other related decisions of EUIPO adopted in the context of that procedure, including those awarding the contract to three other tenderers as successful tenderers ranked first to third in the ‘cascade’ procedure;

Orders EUIPO to compensate European Dynamics Luxembourg for the damage incurred as a result of the loss of opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as, at the very least, the third contractor in the cascade procedure;

Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount, in figures, of compensation arrived at by agreement;

Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall forward to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures;

Reserves the costs.

____________

¹     OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.