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 C2006/326/157

    Case T-331/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA

    IO C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 77–77 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.12.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 326/77

    Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA

    (Case T-331/06)

    (2006/C 326/157)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Environment Agency

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of the EEA to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

    —

    order the EEA to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of its claims the applicant argues that in the decision taken in the framework of the tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 for the ‘Provision of IT consultancy services’ (OJ 2006 S 118-125101) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 14 September 2006 the European Environmental Agency (‘EEA’) failed to comply with its obligations foreseen in the Implementing rules and Directive 2004/18/EC as well as the principle of transparency by not disclosing to the participants in advance the weighting of the sub-criteria which were subsequently applied during the selection procedure.

    Furthermore, the applicant claims that the EEA committed several manifest errors of assessment which resulted in the rejection of its bid.

    The applicant requests that the decision of the EEA to reject its bid and award the contract to three other participants be annulled and that the defendant is ordered by the Court to pay all legal expenses related to the present proceedings even if the application is rejected.

    Top