# C_2012049EN.01001701.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/17

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-298/09: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-629/11 P)

2012/C 49/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the Judgment of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the Judgment of the General Court.

| — | Exercise its full Jurisdiction and annul DG EAC's decision to select the bids of the Appellant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (OJ 2008/S 158-212752) Lot 1 for the ‘IS Development and Maintenance’ and Lot 2 for ‘IS Studies, Testing, Training & Support’, as second contractor in the cascade mechanism, communicated to the Appellant by two separate letters dated 12 May 2009, as well as the request for damages according to ex Articles 225, 235 and 288 EC (now 256, 268 and 340 TFEU) for the damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 9 544 480 Euro (3 945 040 Euro for Lot 1 and 5 599 440 Euro for Lot 2). |
| --- | --- |

—

Exercise its full Jurisdiction and annul DG EAC's decision to select the bids of the Appellant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (OJ 2008/S 158-212752) Lot 1 for the ‘IS Development and Maintenance’ and Lot 2 for ‘IS Studies, Testing, Training & Support’, as second contractor in the cascade mechanism, communicated to the Appellant by two separate letters dated 12 May 2009, as well as the request for damages according to ex Articles 225, 235 and 288 EC (now 256, 268 and 340 TFEU) for the damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 9 544 480 Euro (3 945 040 Euro for Lot 1 and 5 599 440 Euro for Lot 2).

| — | Alternatively, refer back the Case to the General Court in order to rule on the substance of the Case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, refer back the Case to the General Court in order to rule on the substance of the Case.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs incurred in connection with this Appeal, including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure of the Action for annulment before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs incurred in connection with this Appeal, including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure of the Action for annulment before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The Appellant founds its Appeal on a single plea concerning the erroneous interpretation of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 149(2) of the Implementing Rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Appellant founds its Appeal on a single plea concerning the erroneous interpretation of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 149(2) of the Implementing Rules.

1

| 2. | The Appellant requests the annulment of the Judgment in case T-298/09 since the Commission failed to comply in time with the provisions of Article 100(2) of the FR and 149(2) of the Implementing Rules, that being an essential procedural requirement. In addition, the limited information communicated, with delay, to the Appellant can by no means be considered as sufficient and fulfilling the obligation to state reasons, as provided for by Article 100(2) of the FR, since it did not give any reasons or justification for the respective evaluation and does not contain any information concerning the characteristics and the relative merits of the best-ranked tenderer. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Appellant requests the annulment of the Judgment in case T-298/09 since the Commission failed to comply in time with the provisions of Article 100(2) of the FR and 149(2) of the Implementing Rules, that being an essential procedural requirement. In addition, the limited information communicated, with delay, to the Appellant can by no means be considered as sufficient and fulfilling the obligation to state reasons, as provided for by Article 100(2) of the FR, since it did not give any reasons or justification for the respective evaluation and does not contain any information concerning the characteristics and the relative merits of the best-ranked tenderer.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities

1

OJ L 248, p. 1

---