# C_2017078EN.01003401.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/34

---

Action brought on 27 December 2016 — Proof IT v EIGE

(Case T-914/16)

(2017/C 078/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality adopted in the procurement procedure for the award of a framework contract ‘Maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 1 and EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 2, notified to the applicant by letter of 14 October 2016, to reject the applicant’s tender and to award the framework contract to a third company; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality adopted in the procurement procedure for the award of a framework contract ‘Maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 1 and EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 2, notified to the applicant by letter of 14 October 2016, to reject the applicant’s tender and to award the framework contract to a third company;

| — | award damages to the applicant for loss of opportunity and/or for loss of the contract itself in the amount of EUR 128 480; |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages to the applicant for loss of opportunity and/or for loss of the contract itself in the amount of EUR 128 480;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by failing to interpret the award criteria in the same way throughout the entire procurement procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by failing to interpret the award criteria in the same way throughout the entire procurement procedure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by entirely re-evaluating the applicant’s tender, thus acting in an arbitrary manner giving rise to concerns about favouritism. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by entirely re-evaluating the applicant’s tender, thus acting in an arbitrary manner giving rise to concerns about favouritism.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency since the award criteria are imprecise, thus conferring on the defendant an unrestricted freedom of choice as regards the awarding of the contract in question. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency since the award criteria are imprecise, thus conferring on the defendant an unrestricted freedom of choice as regards the awarding of the contract in question.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment in evaluating the applicant’s tender which, once corrected, would lead to a different result of the procurement procedure, i.e. the applicant’s tender should not have been rejected and the framework contract should have been awarded to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment in evaluating the applicant’s tender which, once corrected, would lead to a different result of the procurement procedure, i.e. the applicant’s tender should not have been rejected and the framework contract should have been awarded to the applicant.

---