# C_2015228EN.01001702.xml

| 13.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/17

---

Action brought on 31 March 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament

(Case T-164/15)

(2015/C 228/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Ι. Ambazis and M. Sfiri, lawyers

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Parliament which was made known to the applicants by letter D(2015)7680 of 13 February 2015 and which ranked in third place the applicants’ tender for one of eight separate lots and in particular Lot 3, within the framework of the open procurement procedure 2014/S 066-111912 titled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS14 — External provision of IT services’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Parliament which was made known to the applicants by letter D(2015)7680 of 13 February 2015 and which ranked in third place the applicants’ tender for one of eight separate lots and in particular Lot 3, within the framework of the open procurement procedure 2014/S 066-111912 titled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS14 — External provision of IT services’;

| — | order the Parliament to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of the opportunity to be ranked in first place for Lot 3 in the ITS14 framework agreement, which the applicants evaluate ex aequo et bono at one million, five hundred thousand euros (EUR 1 5 00  000), with interest from the date of that decision or such other amount as the Court deems appropriate, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of the opportunity to be ranked in first place for Lot 3 in the ITS14 framework agreement, which the applicants evaluate ex aequo et bono at one million, five hundred thousand euros (EUR 1 5 00  000), with interest from the date of that decision or such other amount as the Court deems appropriate, and

ex aequo et bono

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicants’ entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicants’ entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, due to the fact that the Parliament infringed:

| 1. | the obligation to state reasons, and provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the assessment of the applicants’ technical offer, with which they participated in the tendering procedure at issue, while it failed to give details of the economic offers of the successful consortiums; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the obligation to state reasons, and provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the assessment of the applicants’ technical offer, with which they participated in the tendering procedure at issue, while it failed to give details of the economic offers of the successful consortiums;

| 2. | the terms of the contractual documents (the tender specification and supplementary guidelines), which the Parliament had itself drawn up, and applied for the assessment of the economic offers of the tenderers a method of calculation which differed from that which was which was set by the said documents, and |
| --- | --- |

2.

the terms of the contractual documents (the tender specification and supplementary guidelines), which the Parliament had itself drawn up, and applied for the assessment of the economic offers of the tenderers a method of calculation which differed from that which was which was set by the said documents, and

| 3. | the terms of the contractual documents and EU law, since it refrained from identification and examination of the issue of the excessively low offers which were submitted. |
| --- | --- |

3.

the terms of the contractual documents and EU law, since it refrained from identification and examination of the issue of the excessively low offers which were submitted.

---