# C_2012109EN.01001801.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/18

---

Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case T-40/12)

2012/C 109/40

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

By this action the applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision dated 22 Νovember 2011 of the European Police Office (Europol), whereby Europol excluded the consortium’s bid by which the applicants participated in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 22 Νovember 2011 of the European Police Office (Europol), whereby Europol excluded the consortium’s bid by which the applicants participated in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104, and

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

—

order EUROPOL to pay the applicants’ entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants consider that the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU and put forward the following argument, which encompasses three considerations:

| | First, Europol without any justification excluded the applicants’ bid, maintaining that the applicants altered the technical and financial terms of their bid, with the consequence that Europol has no legal basis for its decision to exclude the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

First, Europol without any justification excluded the applicants’ bid, maintaining that the applicants altered the technical and financial terms of their bid, with the consequence that Europol has no legal basis for its decision to exclude the applicants.

| | Second, Europol had no justification for its complaint to the applicants that their bid was inaccurate and for excluding it, when it was Europol which caused and consented to or condoned the existence of vagueness and lack of clarity as to the meaning of the terms ‘out of the box’ and ‘customisation’, contrary to the principle of transparency. |
| --- | --- |

Second, Europol had no justification for its complaint to the applicants that their bid was inaccurate and for excluding it, when it was Europol which caused and consented to or condoned the existence of vagueness and lack of clarity as to the meaning of the terms ‘out of the box’ and ‘customisation’, contrary to the principle of transparency.

| | Third, Europol, by excluding the applicants’ bid from the tendering procedure, infringed the principle of proportionality in the application of the terms of the contractual documents. |
| --- | --- |

Third, Europol, by excluding the applicants’ bid from the tendering procedure, infringed the principle of proportionality in the application of the terms of the contractual documents.

---