# C_2012184EN.01001701.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/17

---

Action brought on 11 April 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaiki Dinamiki v Commission

(Case T-165/12)

2012/C 184/30

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V Christianos, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission decision CMS/cms D(2012)/00008 of 8 February 2012, which was communicated to the applicants on 9 February 2012, whereby the European Commission rejected the applicants’ tender in the closed tendering procedure EuropeAid/131431/C/SER/AL, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission decision CMS/cms D(2012)/00008 of 8 February 2012, which was communicated to the applicants on 9 February 2012, whereby the European Commission rejected the applicants’ tender in the closed tendering procedure EuropeAid/131431/C/SER/AL, and

| — | order the Commission to pay the entirety of the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the entirety of the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicants seek the annulment of the European Commission decision CMS/cms D(2012)/00008 of 8 February 2012, which was communicated to the applicants on 9 February 2012, whereby the European Commission rejected the applicants’ tender in the closed tendering procedure EuropeAid/131431/C/SER/AL.

The applicants claim that the contested decision should be annulled, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, because of contravention of the rules of European Union law and, in particular, on the following three grounds:

| 1. | First, because of the infringement by the Commission of the principle of transparency, since the contested decision, even after the Commission’s letter of 21 February 2012, did not allow the tenderers to have access to the record of the Commission’s assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, because of the infringement by the Commission of the principle of transparency, since the contested decision, even after the Commission’s letter of 21 February 2012, did not allow the tenderers to have access to the record of the Commission’s assessment.

| 2. | Second, because of the infringement by the Commission of the duty to state reasons:






  — | because, in respect of the characteristics and advantages of the successful tenderer, even after the Commission’s letter of 21 February 2012, both the analytical score of the successful tenderer’s technical bid and the justification for that score were completely lacking in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second, because of the infringement by the Commission of the duty to state reasons:

—

because, in respect of the characteristics and advantages of the successful tenderer, even after the Commission’s letter of 21 February 2012, both the analytical score of the successful tenderer’s technical bid and the justification for that score were completely lacking in the contested decision.

| — | Because in respect of the technical bid of the applicants themselves, the contested decision, even after the Commission’s letter of 21 February 2012, contained a completely inadequate statement of reasons for its score. |
| --- | --- |

—

Because in respect of the technical bid of the applicants themselves, the contested decision, even after the Commission’s letter of 21 February 2012, contained a completely inadequate statement of reasons for its score.

---