Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62011CN0597

    Case C-597/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-232/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

    OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 42–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    28.1.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 25/42

    Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-232/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

    (Case C-597/11 P)

    (2012/C 25/79)

    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 Commission

    Form of order sought

    The appellant claim that the Court should:

    —

    Set aside the decision of the General Court.

    —

    Exercise its full Jurisdiction and annul the decision of the Commission (DG Taxation and Customs Union) to reject the bid of the Appellant, filed in response to the Call for Tender (the ‘CfT’) TAXUD/2005/AO-001 for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects of the DG-TAXUD ‘CUST-DEV’ (OJ 2005/S 187-183846) and to award the same Call for Tender to another bidder, communicated to the applicant by letter dated 19 June 2006 and award the requested Damages

    —

    Alternatively Refer to the General Court the case in order to rule on the substance of the case.

    —

    Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

     

    First, the Appellant submits that he General Court committed an error in law adopting an erroneous interpretation of Article 89 (1) and 98 (1) of the Financial Regulation, and of Article 140 (1) and (2) and Article 141 (2) of the Implementing Rules, of the principles of equality of treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and freedom of competition.

     

    Second, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law misinterpreting, and distorting the submitted evidence.

     

    Furthermore, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by interpreting erroneously the amendment of the Selection Criteria as well as by not examining the existence of numerous manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the tender and by providing insufficient motivation of the attacked Judgment.
    Top