Action brought on 5 April 2012 - European Dynamics Belgium and Others v European Medicines Agency

(Case T-158/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki - Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) and European Dynamics UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

-    annul the European Medicines Agency ('ΕΜΑ') decision ΕΜΑ/67882/2012 of 31 January 2012, whereby the ΕΜΑ placed the applicants' tender in second place in the open tendering procedure ΕΜΑ/2011/17/ICT, which related to its Lot 1;·

-    order the ΕΜΑ to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity which the first priority framework contract would have brought, which they estimate at EUR 2 139 471.70, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment and

-    Order the ΕΜΑ to pay the entirety of the applicants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicants seek the annulment of the ΕΜΑ decision of 31 January 2012, whereby the ΕΜΑ placed the applicants' tender in second place in the open tendering procedure ΕΜΑ/2011/17/ICT, which related to its Lot 1, and the payment of compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity which first place in the open tendering procedure ΕΜΑ/2011/17/ICT would have brought.

The applicants claim that the contested decision should be annulled, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, because of contravention of the rules of European Union law and, in particular, on the following three grounds:

1.    First, the ΕΜΑ, contrary to the Financial regulation, its implementing regulation and the technical specifications dossier, added at the stage of presentation the condition that the tenderers' external collaborators be present, in order that they could be assessed, which was not referred to in the initial competition contract documents and, consequently, was a new award criterion.

2.    Second, the ΕΜΑ, contrary to the implementing regulation, assessed and attributed scores to the experience of the tenderers, which had already been examined as a qualitative selection criterion, at the stage of the award procedure.

3.    Third, the ΕΜΑ was in breach of the principle of transparency :

-    because one of the award criteria in the technical specifications dossier was formulated in such a way as to exclude the possibility of its objective assessment;

-    because the technical specifications dossier did not contain the algorithm on the basis of which there would result the applicants' exact score (to the second decimal point).

____________