Order — ECLI:EU:T:2012:566
Date: 2012-10-24
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Public procurement in the European Union
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Greece

Action brought on 5 August 2011 - Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Case T-442/11) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought Annul the Decision of the Commission of 27 May 2011, not to take any remedial action after the European Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the Decision taken by the Commission in November 2006, to select the products and services of a third company, was not in conformity with the applicable EU public procurement legislation; Order the Commission to pay the applicant's damages in order to neutralise the impact it suffered on account of its decision of November 2006; Order the Commission to pay the applicant 1 million EURO for a loss of opportunity to participate in the call for tenders which it decided to cancel; Order the Commission to pay the applicant 1 million EURO for an authorised use of intellectual property rights; Order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of 10 million EURO for a non-pecuniary loss, consisting of its reputation and credibility being undermined; Order the Commission to issue a public notice, informing the market and all users interested in CIRCA (an IT tool which enables the electronic collaboration among employees or groups of individuals located in different locations), that such is not an obsolete platform, that the platform developed by Alfresco Software Ltd. is not a privileged platform and that the users are free to select as a substitute for CIRCA the platform of their choice; and Order the Commission 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 In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the obligation arising from Articles 27, 88, 89 and 91 of the financial regulation1, as well as of Articles 116, 122 and 124 of the implementing rules2, to conduct an open or restricted call for tenders. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principles of non discrimination and equal treatment. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration and the obligation to state reasons. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission misused its powers. ____________ 1 - Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1) 2 - Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)