EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/10

Action brought on 20 June 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIT

(Case T-481/14)

2014/C 351/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Siouti and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s award decision regarding the call for tender communicated to the applicant in its letter of 11 April 2014 and all further related decisions of the defendant, including the decision to award the contract to the winning tenderer (which has not been communicated to the applicants);

— annul the decision of the Director of the EIT of 25 April 2014, refusing to disclose the composition of the Evaluation Committee;

— order the defendant to provide the applicants with the compensation of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract in the context of the call for tender, reaching the amount of 1 58 430,40 euros;

— order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant mixed the selection and award criteria whereby it infringed Article 110 of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 149 of the Delegated Regulation (2).

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 105 and 113 of the Financial Regulation and Article 138 of the Delegated Regulation as the defendant used unknown criteria, which were not included in the Tender Specifications, when evaluating the tenders and infringed its obligation to specify the award criteria and their relative weighting or, where appropriate, the decreasing order of importance. The applicants further submit that the defendant relied on a discrete, discontinuous marking system, causing distortions and errors in the evaluation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2(3) and 8 of Regulation 1049/2001 (3) by refusing to disclose the composition of the Evaluation Committee, which would have allowed for the applicants to verify the absence of conflict of interests.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).