# C_2012025EN.01004201.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/42

---

Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-232/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-597/11 P)

(2012/C 25/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

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

—

Set aside the decision of the General Court.

| — | Exercise its full Jurisdiction and annul the decision of the Commission (DG Taxation and Customs Union) to reject the bid of the Appellant, filed in response to the Call for Tender (the ‘CfT’) TAXUD/2005/AO-001 for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects of the DG-TAXUD ‘CUST-DEV’ (OJ 2005/S 187-183846) and to award the same Call for Tender to another bidder, communicated to the applicant by letter dated 19 June 2006 and award the requested Damages |
| --- | --- |

—

Exercise its full Jurisdiction and annul the decision of the Commission (DG Taxation and Customs Union) to reject the bid of the Appellant, filed in response to the Call for Tender (the ‘CfT’) TAXUD/2005/AO-001 for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects of the DG-TAXUD ‘CUST-DEV’ (OJ 2005/S 187-183846) and to award the same Call for Tender to another bidder, communicated to the applicant by letter dated 19 June 2006 and award the requested Damages

| — | Alternatively Refer to the General Court the case in order to rule on the substance of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively Refer to the General Court the case in order to rule on the substance of the case.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| | First, the Appellant submits that he General Court committed an error in law adopting an erroneous interpretation of Article 89 (1) and 98 (1) of the Financial Regulation, and of Article 140 (1) and (2) and Article 141 (2) of the Implementing Rules, of the principles of equality of treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and freedom of competition. |
| --- | --- |

First, the Appellant submits that he General Court committed an error in law adopting an erroneous interpretation of Article 89 (1) and 98 (1) of the Financial Regulation, and of Article 140 (1) and (2) and Article 141 (2) of the Implementing Rules, of the principles of equality of treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and freedom of competition.

| | Second, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law misinterpreting, and distorting the submitted evidence. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law misinterpreting, and distorting the submitted evidence.

| | Furthermore, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by interpreting erroneously the amendment of the Selection Criteria as well as by not examining the existence of numerous manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the tender and by providing insufficient motivation of the attacked Judgment. |
| --- | --- |

Furthermore, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by interpreting erroneously the amendment of the Selection Criteria as well as by not examining the existence of numerous manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the tender and by providing insufficient motivation of the attacked Judgment.

---