16.6.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/18

Appeal brought on 8 April 2014 by European Dynamics Belgium and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-158/12 European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA

(Case C-173/14 P)

2014/C 184/22

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 in Case Τ-158/12 and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

—	Order the EMA to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1.	The appellants submit that the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 in Case Τ-158/12 contains findings of law which are manifestly contrary to rules of European Union law and are contested in this appeal.

In the opinion of the appellants, the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the ground of a manifest error of assessment, on the ground of a distortion of the appellants’ arguments, on the ground of a defective statement of reasons and on the ground of misinterpretation and misapplication of European Union law.

Specifically, the appellants put forward four grounds of appeal:

—

The first ground of appeal concerns the new award criterion which was added in the tendering procedure but was not provided for within the technical specifications. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal the distortion of their plea in law and of the arguments put forward in their written pleadings, and also failure to state reasons.

—	The second ground of appeal concerns the assessment of a qualitative selection criterion as an award criterion. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal an error of assessment, misinterpretation and misapplication of European Union law, and a failure to state reasons.

—

The third ground of appeal concerns the assessment of the experience acquired from previous contracts with the same award criteria. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal misinterpretation and misapplication of European Union law, an error of assessment and failure to state reasons.

—	The fourth ground of appeal concerns the assessment of a criterion of which objective marking was not possible. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal a manifest error of assessment, misapplication of European Union law and failure to state reasons.