CELEX: 62011TA0299
Language: en
Date: 2015-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-299/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki Luxembourg and Others v OHIM (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supplies of external service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Award criteria — Equal opportunities — Transparency — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability — Loss of an opportunity)

30.11.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 398/26
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki Luxembourg and Others v OHIM
   (Case T-299/11) (1)
   
   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supplies of external service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Award criteria - Equal opportunities - Transparency - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability - Loss of an opportunity))
   (2015/C 398/36)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) and European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, and subsequently by I. Ampazis, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, acting as Agents, and P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Action, first, for annulment of the decision of OHIM adopted in the context of the open call for tenders AO/021/10, entitled ‘External service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies’, and notified to the applicants by letter of 28 March 2011, to rank the first applicant’s bid third in the ‘cascade’ mechanism for the purpose of awarding a framework contract; and, second, for damages.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the decision of OHIM adopted in the context of the open call for tenders AO/021/10, entitled ‘External service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies’, and notified to European Dynamics Luxembourg SA by letter of 28 March 2011, to rank the latter’s bid in third position in the ‘cascade’ mechanism for the purposes of awarding a framework contract and to rank the bids of Consortium Unisys SLU and Charles Oakes & Co. Sàrl, on the one hand, and of ETIQ Consortium (by everis and Trasys), on the other hand, in first and second positions respectively;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the European Union to pay compensation for the harm suffered by European Dynamics Luxembourg for the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as the contractor ranked first in the cascade;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Dismisses the claim for compensation as to the remainder;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement;
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall transmit to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures;
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Reserves the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.