CELEX: 62017TN0439
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-439/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Yellow Window v EIGE

9.10.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 338/15
            
         Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Yellow Window v EIGE
   (Case T-439/17)
   (2017/C 338/16)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Yellow Window (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 assessing not successful the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and subsequent decisions to assess the bid of another tenderer successful and to award the contract to it;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant as well as an interest of 8 % or in the alternative to award a compensation as well as a compensation of 8 %;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.
            
         
      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 an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, of the principle of transparency, of the principle to act with a certain care, of the duty to respect confidentiality as well as alleging manifest error of appraisal.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds, infringement of the principle of proportionality while assessing the applicant's tender.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a good administration.