Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015TA0441

Case T-441/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA (Arbitration clause — Multiple framework contract involving the ‘cascade’ system EMA/2012/10/ICT — External service provision for software applications — Request to provide services addressed to the applicants — Rejection of the candidates proposed by the applicants — Proportionality — Reclassification in part of the action — Non-contractual liability)

OJ C 112, 10.4.2017, p. 34–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/34


Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA

(Case T-441/15) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Multiple framework contract involving the ‘cascade’ system EMA/2012/10/ICT - External service provision for software applications - Request to provide services addressed to the applicants - Rejection of the candidates proposed by the applicants - Proportionality - Reclassification in part of the action - Non-contractual liability))

(2017/C 112/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, then M. Sfyri, D. Papadopoulou and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, G. Gavriilidou and P. Eyckmans, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the EMA’s decision of 4 June 2015, notified to the applicants by means of an e-mail from the IT Resource Manager, rejecting two of the candidates whom the applicants had proposed in response to the request for services SC001, in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU and asking for compensation for the harm that the applicants had allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)

Dismisses the action;

2)

Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


Top