This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0235
Case C-235/11 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Case C-235/11 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Case C-235/11 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 17–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.7.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 211/17 |
Appeal brought on 17 May 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
(Case C-235/11 P)
2011/C 211/34
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)
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 the decision of the Commission (DG ENVI) to reject the bids submitted by the applicant for each of the three lots relating to open Invitation to Tender DG ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 ‘Framework contract for Emission Trading Scheme — CITL/CR’ (2008/S72-096229) and to award those contracts to another tenderer, |
|
— |
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 GC, |
|
— |
Order the Commission 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 the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:
|
— |
Manifest error of assessment and insufficient reasoning. |
|
— |
Misinterpretation by the General Court of art. 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and of art. 149 of the implementing rules (2) in relation to its appreciation of the obligation to state reasons of the contracting authority. |
|
— |
The General Court erred in law by not accepting the appellant’s arguments concerning the infringement of the principle of equal treatment. |
(1) OJ L 248, p. 1
(2) OJ L 357, p. 1