Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62017TN0450

Case T-450/17: Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE

OJ C 357, 23.10.2017, p. 16–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/16

Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE

(Case T-450/17)

(2017/C 357/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurosupport — Fineurop support Srl (Milano, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and the subsequent decisions which assessed the bid of another tenderer as successful and which awarded the contract to that tenderer;

—

order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant with interest of 8 % or, in the alternative, compensation with interest of 8 %;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the principle of transparency, the principle to act with a certain care and the duty to respect confidentiality, and further alleging manifest error of appraisal.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds of the evaluation decisions and infringement of the principle of proportionality in the assessment of the applicant’s tender.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration.
Top