Action brought on 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Railway Agency

(Case T-392/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Αthens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Βrussels, Βelgium) (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)Defendant: European Railway Agency (ERA)Form of order soughtThe applicants claim that the General Court should:annul the decision of the European Railway Agency which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 08/05/2015 from the Head of Resources and Support Unit and whereby ERA ranked in second place the ap

) (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyr

ite time and means information system deve

lopment, support and assistance’, in the framework of the open procurement procedure No 2015/S 019-02972

8 titled ‘ΕRA/2015/01/OP ESPEISD 5 — External Service Provision for ERA Information System’·annul the decision of the European Railway Agency which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 01/07/2015 from the Head of Resources and Support Unit and whereby ERA ranked in second place the applicant’s tender for one of three individual lots and specifically for Lot 2 ‘Off-site information system development, support and assistance’, in the framework of the open procurement procedure No 2015/S 019-029728 titled ‘ΕRA/2015/01/OP ESP-EISD 5 — External Service Provision for ERA Information System’, andorder the European Railway Agency to pay all the costs of the applicants.Pleas in law and main argumentsIn the o

formation system development, support and assistance’, in the framework of the open procurement procedure No 2015/S 019-029728 titled ‘ΕRA/2015/01/OP ESPEISD 5 — External Service Provision for ERA Information System’·annul the decision of the European Railway Agency which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 01/07/2015 from the Head of Resources and Support Unit and whereby ERA ranked in second place the applicant’s tender for one of three individual lots and specifically for Lot 2 ‘Off-site information system development, support and assistance’, in the framework of the open procurement procedure No 2015/S 019-029728 titled ‘ΕRA/2015/01/OP ESP-EISD 5 — External Service Provision for ERA Information System’, andorder the European Railway Agency to pay all the costs of the applicants.Pleas in law and main argumentsIn the opinion of the applicants, the contested decisions should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, due to a breach by ERA of the obligation to state reasons, since it provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the assessment of the applicants’ technical tender with respect to the existence of excessively low tenders.

____________