do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-761/20: Action brought on 20 December 2020 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB
Date: 2020-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, damages, indemnification, information technology applications, invitation to tender, public procurement, services contract, tendering, works contract








C_2021088EN.01003301.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/33






Action brought on 20 December 2020 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB
(Case T-761/20)
(2021/C 88/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Sfyri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the ECB to exclude the applicant’s tenders from all three lots of the procurement procedure ‘Provision of services and works for IT Application Delivery’ PRO-004801 (Lot 1), PRO-005110 (Lot 2) and PRO-005112 (Lot 3);










—


annul the appeal decision of the ECB Procurement Review Body to reject the applicant’s appeal submitted in accordance with the appeal procedure as defined in section VI.4 of the tender specifications of the abovementioned call for tenders and under the conditions set out in Article 39 of the ECB Procurement Decision (ECB/2016/2);










—


annul all the subsequent related decisions of the ECB and in particular any award decision which was never communicated to the applicant;










—


award damages according to Articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU corresponding to the loss of the chance to secure the contracts or to the loss of income corresponding to the profit that the applicant would have made if it had performed the contracts and to the compensation corresponding to the non-material damages;










—


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





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 that the defendant made several manifest errors of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant introduced new, vague and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers.