Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

(Case T-577/11)

(2012/C 25/110)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Gkaripis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (Solna, Sweden)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— uphold the present action;

— establish the infringement, committed by the Committee for the evaluation of tenders in the contested decision, of the conditions of contract notice OJ/27/05/2011-PROC/2011/041 of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC);

— annul Decision ADM-11-1737-AAbema of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 25 August 2011 taken against the applicant;

— order the defendant European body to re-examine the tender submitted on 22 July 2011 by the Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon in the procedure at issue;

— order the defendant body to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision ADM-11-1737-AAbema of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 25 August 2011, by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s tender in response to notice OJ/27/05/2011-PROC/2011/041 for the conclusion of a public works contract with the defendant concerning ‘Systematic review and expert guidance on the public health effectiveness of molecular typing of viral pathogens’.

In support of its pleas in law, the applicant puts forward the following arguments:

1. Misappraisal of the facts concerning the applicant’s tender The defendant body rejected the University of Athens’ tender on the ground that the proposed members of the project team did not possess the requisite technical and professional ability for the work covered by the contract notice and it ruled out further examination of its proposal. In reality, however, the professional and technical activities of the members of the project team demonstrate their professional and technical sufficiency for performing the work covered by the contract notice.

2. Error in the decision as regards the assessment criteria The committee considered that the members of the project team in the applicant’s proposal would not be able to perform a systematic review of the contract’s subject-matter. However, not only did the members of the project team possess such experience, but even if that were not so the relevant condition regarding adequacy in systematic analysis had not been laid down in the contract notice as a condition which would determine the result of the assessment as an essential precondition for the award of the contract, that condition instead concerning a quality that would be assessed together with the other qualities.

3. Unlawful statement of reasons — lack of legal basis for the reasons stated The second ground of the contested measure refers to the applicant’s lack of ability to implement an evidence-based medicine approach. However, that method is not referred to at any point in the text of the contract notice as one of the criteria for selecting the most suitable contractor for performing the work put out to tender.