# C_2017269EN.01002701.xml

| 14.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/27

---

Action brought on 10 May 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-281/17)

(2017/C 269/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri and C-N. Dede, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure (reference EuropeAid/138143/DH/SER/AL), communicated to the applicants with its letter of 6 March 2017, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure (reference EuropeAid/138143/DH/SER/AL), communicated to the applicants with its letter of 6 March 2017, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another tenderer;

| — | order the defendant to provide the applicants with compensation in the form of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract, in the amount of EUR 240 000 (two hundred and forty thousand Euros); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to provide the applicants with compensation in the form of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract, in the amount of EUR 240 000 (two hundred and forty thousand Euros);

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicants exemplary damages in the amount of EUR 40 000 (forty thousand Euros); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants exemplary damages in the amount of EUR 40 000 (forty thousand Euros);

| — | order the Defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the EU law of public procurement, the principles of transparency and equal treatment and the provisions of the Financial Regulation, by not communicating to the applicants the award decision at the same time it communicated it to the other tenderers and by refusing to respect the standstill period. The applicants argue that the defendant acted in breach of the principle of sound administration by adversely affecting the applicants’ right to an effective remedy against the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the EU law of public procurement, the principles of transparency and equal treatment and the provisions of the Financial Regulation, by not communicating to the applicants the award decision at the same time it communicated it to the other tenderers and by refusing to respect the standstill period. The applicants argue that the defendant acted in breach of the principle of sound administration by adversely affecting the applicants’ right to an effective remedy against the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant changed the tender specifications a few days before the deadline for the submission of tenders, introducing new terms. By doing so, the defendant infringed Article 112 of the Financial Regulation, since changes to procurement documents occurred through contacts during the procurement procedure and more specifically through clarifications that were given to the tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant changed the tender specifications a few days before the deadline for the submission of tenders, introducing new terms. By doing so, the defendant infringed Article 112 of the Financial Regulation, since changes to procurement documents occurred through contacts during the procurement procedure and more specifically through clarifications that were given to the tenderers.

| 3. | By their third plea, the applicants argue that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment, which are depicted in the extracts of the Evaluation Report communicated to the applicants and that the defendant introduced new and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

By their third plea, the applicants argue that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment, which are depicted in the extracts of the Evaluation Report communicated to the applicants and that the defendant introduced new and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers.

---