Appeal brought on 3 October 2009 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2009 in Case T-279/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Banque centrale européenne BCE

(Case C-401/09 P)

2010/C 11/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the defendant's objection of inadmissibility, submitted together with the defence, should have been declared inadmissible due to the fact that it does not comply with article 114 of the rules of procedure of the CFI which expressly provides that such an objection must be submitted ‘by a separate document’. The appellant also submits that, by accepting the objection of inadmissibility and failing to comment on the appellant's arguments with respect to the objection, the CFI infringed article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

In the appellant's view the CFI was wrong when it held that European Dynamics, because its bid was unacceptable, had no legal interest in seeking review of the decision of the contracting authority. The appellant also argues that the CFI erred by considering that it was necessary for the appellant to obtain an Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgenehmigung (AÜG) in order to offer its services lawfully.

Finally the appellant submits that the CFI failed to apply the relevant legal provisions concerning the duty of the contracting authority to provide reasons for its decision.