Action brought on 12 September 2025 – European Dynamics Luxembourg and European Dynamics Advanced Information Technology and Telecommunication System v ENISA

(Case T-625/25)

(C/2025/6185)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Advanced Information Technology and Telecommunication System SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Gkaintatzi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul ENISA’s decision, with reference No. Ares(2025)5644045, of 11 July 2025, notified to the Applicants by email on 12 July 2025, in so far as the applicants’ tender for the procurement procedure with reference No. ENISA F-OSA 25-T02 (ENISA/2025/OP/0001) for the ‘Implementation of the Single Reporting Platform’ (‘the call for tenders’) was ranked in the second position in the cascade;

—	annul any subsequent related decisions of ENISA which have not been communicated to the applicants;

—	award the applicants compensation for damages under Articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU, bearing compensatory interest, according to Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (‘the Financial Regulation’); and

—	order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that ENISA has violated Article 178 of the Financial Regulation regarding the standstill obligation, the right of the applicants to an effective remedy, according to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as the general principles of transparency and equal treatment through several manifest errors of assessment it committed during the evaluation of its technical tender.

Second plea in law, alleging that ENISA violated the principles of transparency and equal treatment, as enshrined in Article 163(1) of the Financial Regulation, as well as the tender specifications and, more precisely, Section 3.4. of ‘Part 1: Administrative specifications’ of the call for tenders, in so far as the selection subcriterion of ‘seniority’ is concerned.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that ENISA committed a manifest error of assessment and violated the right of applicants to good administration in so far as the award subcriterion regarding ‘security clearance certificates’ is concerned.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that ENISA committed manifest errors of assessment in so far as the rest Subcriteria 2-9 are concerned.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast) (OJ L, 2024/2509).