Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 22 July 2009 - Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-298/09)

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: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the Commission's decisions to select the bids of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) Lot 1 "IS Development and Maintenance" and Lot 2 "IS Studies, Testing, Training and Support" (OJ 2008/S 158-212752) second contractor in the cascade mechanism, communicated to the applicant by two separate letters dated 12 May 2009 and all further related decisions of Commission including the one to award the respective contracts to the successful contractors;

order the Commission to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 9.554.480;

order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal 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 select its bids, submitted in response to a call for an open tender for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (EAC/01/2008), as second contractor in the cascade mechanism and to award the respective contracts to the successful contractors. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.

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

First, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principles of good administration and equal treatment as it failed to observe the exclusion criteria provided for by Articles 93(1) and 94 of the financial regulation¹ by not excluding from the tender proceeding one of the members of the winning consortium being in breach of its contractual obligations to the defendant. By doing so, the defendant infringed as well Articles 133a and 134 of the implementing rules².

Second, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed Article 100(2) of the financial regulation as it failed to properly state reasons. In the applicant's opinion, the comments given by the Commission were generic, misleading and vague.

Third, the applicant contends that the Commission has illegally extended the validity of the tenders in violation of Article 130 of the financial regulation and in violation of the principles of good administration, transparency and equal treatment.

____________

¹ - 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)

² - Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC,Euratom) No 478/2007 of 23 April 2007 (OJ 2007 L 111, p. 13)