Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62014TN0764

Case T-764/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014  — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission

IO C 26, 26.1.2015, p. 38–38 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/38

Action brought on 14 November 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission

(Case T-764/14)

(2015/C 026/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfiri and I Ambazis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—

annul the European Commission decision Ares(2014) 2903214 of 5 September 2014 whereby the Commission rejected the applicants’ tender within the framework of the EuropeAid/135040/C/SER/MULTI closed procurement procedure;·

—

as appropriate, order the restoration of the status quo ante;

—

order the Commission to pay all the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicants rely on the following:

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, on the following grounds:

 

First, because the experience of the participants was evaluated at the stage of the award procedure, although that experience had already been examined at the pre-selection stage.

 

Second, because the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons for the decision by giving insufficient reasons for the ranking of the applicants’ technical offer and failing to communicate the full composition of the winning consortium and the essential elements of the financial offer.

 

Third, because the Commission committed a series of manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the applicants’ technical offer, infringing at the same time the principle of equal treatment of participants.

 

Fourth, because the Commission infringed the Financial Regulation and the principle of transparency which that imposes.
Top