EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0006
Case C-6/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2013 by IDT Biologika GmbH against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission
Case C-6/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2013 by IDT Biologika GmbH against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission
Case C-6/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2013 by IDT Biologika GmbH against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission
OJ C 108, 13.4.2013, p. 14–14
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
13.4.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 108/14 |
Appeal brought on 4 January 2013 by IDT Biologika GmbH against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-6/13 P)
2013/C 108/29
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: IDT Biologika GmbH (represented by: R. Gross and T. Kroupa, Rechtsanwälte)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
|
— |
Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012, served on the applicant/appellant by fax on 26 October 2012; |
|
— |
annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 1 September 2010 rejecting the tender submitted in respect of Lot No 1 by IDT Biologika GmbH in response to the call for tenders (reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS) for the supply of rabies vaccines to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Supply of the Republic of Serbia, and awarding the contract to a consortium of various firms led by ‘Bioveta a.s.’; |
|
— |
order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in dismissing the appellant’s application.
The discretion to be exercised by the respondent European Commission in the context of the tendering procedure at issue was — from a factual and technical aspect — not exercised in such a way as to be unimpeachable.
In particular, the General Court erroneously assumed that Bioveta a.s. had, in the tendering procedure, furnished proof of the safety of the product offered by means of corresponding national authorisations, and that separate tests on primates in order to prove the non-virulence to humans of the product offered were not required.
Moreover, Bioveta a.s. has not provided proof that its vaccine is based not on the original but on a modified SAD-Bern virus strain.