Action brought on 2 October 2011 - European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v Commission
(Case T-536/11)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
Annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union to select the applicants' bid submitted in response to the open call for tenders AO 10340 (lots 1, 3 and 4) "Computing Services - Software Development, Maintenance, Consultancy and Assistance for Different Types of IT Applications", as third contractor in the cascade mechanism for lots 1 and 4 and as second contractor in the cascade mechanism for lot 3, communicated to the applicants by letter dated 22 July 2011, and all the related decisions of the Office, including those to award the respective contract to the first and second cascade contractors; and
Order the Publications Office of the European Union to pay damages suffered on account of the loss of opportunity and damage to the applicants' reputation and credibility in the amount of 3.450.000 euros (EUR); and
Order the Publications Office of the European Union to pay the applicants' legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law, for each lot.
First plea in law, alleging
that the Publications Office of the European Union has infringed the obligation to state reasons, that it has not properly disclosed the relative merits of the successful tenderer and, in general, that it has failed to comply with the provisions of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation;
Second plea in law, alleging
that the Publications Office of the European Union has infringed the tender specifications, as well as applied an award criterion contrary to Article 97 of the Financial Regulation and Article 138 of the Implementing Rules;
Third plea in law, alleging
manifest errors of assessment, vague and unsubstantiated comments of the evaluation committee, modification of the award criteria included in the call for tender a posteriori, not notifying new criteria to tenderers in due time and mixing selection and award criteria.
____________1 - OJ 2011/S 66 - 106099