# C_2009019EN.01003001.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/30

---

Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v BEI

(Case T-461/08)

(2009/C 19/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athènes, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Investment Bank to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Investment Bank to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

| — | Order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 1 940 000,00; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 1 940 000,00;

| — | Order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application pursuant to Articles 230 EC and 235 EC, the applicant seeks, on one hand, the annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank of 26 July 2008 to reject the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open Call for Tenders ‘EIB-Assistance in the Maintenance Support and Development of the loans front Office system (SERAPIS) at the European Investment Bank’ (OJ 2007/S 176-215155), and on the other hand, compensation for damages.

The applicant claims that the outcome of the tender has not been communicated to it and that it came only incidentally to its knowledge that a contract award notice had been published in the Official Journal (1) of 26 July 2008. The applicant argues that the contested decision was taken by the defendant in violation of the principles of transparency and of equal treatment, and of the relevant provisions of the EIB's Guide for Procurement and the EC law on public procurement. It is submitted moreover that by not notifying the applicant of its award decision, by failing to provide sufficient justification of its decision to award the contract to another tenderer, by setting criteria that result in unequal treatment, by mixing selection and award criteria, by using a discriminatory evaluation formula of a ratio 75 %/25 %, the defendant allegedly failed to ensure undistorted competition through repeated infringements of the obligation of transparency and equal treatment.

1

The applicant furthermore claims that should the Court find that the defendant infringed the community law of public procurement and/or principles of legal transparency and of equal treatment, the applicant requests monetary compensation equal to 50 % of EUR 3 880 000,00 (EUR 1 940 000,00) from EIB, corresponding to the estimated gross profit from the aforementioned public procurement procedure, should the contract have been awarded to the applicant.

The applicant further requests the Court to condemn the defendant to pay the applicant's legal costs even if the Court rejects the application, in accordance with Article 87(3)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, since it considers that it was the defendant's deficient evaluation of the applicant's tender, as well as the failure to state reasons and inform the applicant timely on the relative merits of the successful tenderer that forced the applicant to seek legal redress before this Court.

---

(1)  OJ 2008/S 144-192307.

1

---