Action brought on 30 January 2013 - Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB

(Case T-51/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 536 610.22, as compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered as a result of the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the framework agreement, with compensatory interest from 31/01/2008 until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with default interest from the date of delivery of the judgment in this dispute until full payment;·

order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 150 000, as exemplary damages, with compensatory interest from 31 January 2008 until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with default interest from the date of delivery of the judgment in this dispute until full payment;

order the EIB to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant claims, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU read together with Article 266 TFEU, before the General Court of the European Union compensation for the damage which it has suffered because of the unlawful conduct of the European Investment Bank ('the EIB').

That damage arose when, as was ruled by the General Court in its judgment of 20 September 2011 in Case Τ-461/08 Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB, the EIB unlawfully rejected the applicant's tender in the call for tenders relating to the award of a framework agreement for the provision of services.

In that context, the applicant claims, first, damages by way of compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered as a result of the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the framework agreement, as a means of restoration of the status quo ante, and, secondly, exemplary damages for the unlawful and improper conduct of the EIB towards the applicant.

The applicant maintains that the conditions for establishing the EIB's non-contractual liability, as set out in settled case-law, to enable it to be compensated are satisfied.

____________