# C_2017078EN.01003502.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/35

---

Action brought on 9 January 2017 — Proof IT v EIGE

(Case T-10/17)

(2017/C 078/49)

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 for online services’ EIGE/2016/OPER/03-Lot 1, notified to the applicant by letter of 28 October 2016, to rank the applicant’s tender in second place and to award the framework contract for lot 1 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 for online services’ EIGE/2016/OPER/03-Lot 1, notified to the applicant by letter of 28 October 2016, to rank the applicant’s tender in second place and to award the framework contract for lot 1 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 72 270; |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages to the applicant for loss of opportunity and/or for loss of the contract itself in the amount of EUR 72 270;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 breach of the principles of equal treatment and transparency, the contract award criteria being imprecise and the evaluation process lacking transparency, thus conferring on the defendant unrestricted freedom of choice as regards awarding of the contract in question. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and transparency, the contract award criteria being imprecise and the evaluation process lacking transparency, thus conferring on the defendant unrestricted freedom of choice as regards awarding of the contract in question.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has 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 have been ranked first and the framework contract awarded to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has 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 have been ranked first and the framework contract awarded to the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment by interpreting the award criteria in such a way that the third company concerned benefited from the knowledge acquired during performance of a previous similar contract with EIGE. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment by interpreting the award criteria in such a way that the third company concerned benefited from the knowledge acquired during performance of a previous similar contract with EIGE.

---