This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0556
Case T-556/11: Action brought on 21 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM
Case T-556/11: Action brought on 21 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM
Case T-556/11: Action brought on 21 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM
IO C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 21–22
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
7.1.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 6/21 |
Action brought on 21 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM
(Case T-556/11)
2012/C 6/39
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to reject the bid of the applicants filed in response to the open call for tender AO/029/10 (E-Alicante: software development and maintenance services) (1), communicated by letter dated 11.08.2011, and all the related decisions of the OHIM including those to award the respective contract to the first, second and third cascade contractor; and |
— |
Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question in the amount of 67 500 000 euros (EUR); and |
— |
Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of loss of opportunity and damage in its reputation and credibility in the amount of 6 750 000 euros (EUR); and |
— |
Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application, even if the present application is rejected. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging
|
(1) OJ 2011/S 10-013995