Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 22 December 2008 - Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-589/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, P. Katsimani, M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decisions of the Commission to evaluate the applicant's bids as not successful and award the contracts to the successful contractor;

order the Commission to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 920 000 EUR to be increased up to 1 700 000 EUR depending on the final amount of the CITL project;

order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other 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 decisions to reject its bids submitted in response to a call for an open tender ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 regarding the "Emission Trading Scheme - CITL/CR"¹ and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.

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

First, it argues that the Commission committed several manifest errors of assessment while evaluating the three bids submitted by the applicant to the three Lots of the tender respectively.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to observe the principles of transparency and equal treatment and therefore infringed relevant provisions reflecting these principles such as Articles 92 and 100 of the financial regulation². Moreover, the applicant argues that the contracting authority infringed its obligation to sufficiently state reasons for its decision. It claims as well that the Commission failed to provide it with additional information that it requested after the award decision regarding the merits of the successful tenderer. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the contracting authority applied criteria that were not set out in advance and thus were unknown to the candidates.

____________

¹ - OJ 2008/S 72-096229

² - 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 L 248, p. 1)