EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/58

Action brought on 3 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v ECHA

(Case T-542/08)

(2009/C 44/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

— annul European Chemicals Agency's decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tender ECHA/2008/24 for the ‘Development of a Chemical Safety Assessment tool’ (OJ 2008/S 115-152918), communicated to the applicant by an undated letter received by the applicant on 25 September 2008 and all subsequent decisions of ECHA including that to award it to the successful contractor;

— order ECHA to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 1 500 000;

— order ECHA to pay the applicant's legal costs incurred in connection with this application even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of the European Chemicals Agency's (‘ECHA’) decision which was notified to it by way of a letter on 25 September 2008 informing the applicant that its bid submitted in the framework of the contract ECHA/2008/24 for the ‘Development of a Chemical Safety Assessment tool’ (OJ 2008/S 115-152918) had not been selected and that the contract had been attributed to TRASYS SA.

The applicant claims that the Evaluation Committee committed multiple errors of assessment in relation to the award criteria, whereas fundamental rules and basic principles of public procurement were allegedly infringed by the contracting authority. Moreover, it is submitted that the ECHA misused its powers in the tender evaluation, infringed the Financial Regulation, and/or the principles of transparency and of equal treatment and that it used vague terms or insufficient motivation to substantiate its decision. Finally, the applicant contends that the defendant breached an essential procedural requirement, deriving from Article 158a of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 478/2007 (1), providing for a standstill period before signing the contract with the successful tenderer. The applicant claims that the defendant has deliberately delayed communicating with the applicant in order to be able to finalise the signature of the contract with the wining tenderer before it received any comments from the applicant, thus annulling the spirit and purpose of the standstill period.

In addition, the applicant requests monetary compensation equal to EUR 1 500 000, corresponding to the estimated gross profit from the aforementioned public procurement procedure, should it have been awarded the contract. The applicant submits that its claim for damages is based upon its substantiated arguments that there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual and that the institutions concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on the exercise of their powers.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 478/2007 of 23 April 2007 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 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 2007 L 111, p. 13).