This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0561
Case C-561/10 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-387/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
Case C-561/10 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-387/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
Case C-561/10 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-387/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
OJ C 72, 5.3.2011, p. 3–4
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.3.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 72/3 |
Appeal brought on 26 November 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-387/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
(Case C-561/10 P)
2011/C 72/05
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, Attorneys at Law)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the decision of the General Court; |
|
— |
annul OPOCE's (Publications Office of the European Union) decision to reject the bid of the Appellant, and to award the same Call for Tender to another bidder and to award damages; |
|
— |
refer the case to the General Court in order that the latter examines the remaining issues in both Lots, including the request for Damages, not examined yet by the General Court; |
|
— |
order the OPOCE to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant submits that in the contested Judgment the General Court erred in law and wrongly interpreted Article 100 (2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 149 of the Implementing Rules by accepting that, since the Appellant's tender did not reach the 70 % threshold, the Commission rightfully did not communicate to the Appellant the relative merits of the winning tenderer. Furthermore, the Appellant submits that the Judgment is insufficiently motivated since the General Court failed to examine thoroughly and individually the plea concerning the infringement of the principle of transparency and equal treatment.
The Appellant also submits that the General Court breached the obligation to state reasons, since, although it acknowledged that in numerous sub-criteria the comments in the contested decision were vague and generic and do not explain the marks awarded to the applicant's tender, and that the contested decision is vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to specific award sub-criteria, it concluded that the ‘statement of reasons in respect of numerous other award criteria and sub-criteria is adequate’. Further, the General Court erred in its interpretation of the obligation to state reasons, by considering that several of the comments of the Evaluation Committee fulfilled its obligation to state reasons, and it did not examine thoroughly and failed to motivate individually and sufficiently the arguments of the Appellant concerning the infringement of the principle of transparency and equal treatment.
(1) 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