CELEX: 62009CN0401
Language: en
Date: 2009-10-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-401/09 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2009 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2009 in Case T-279/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Banque centrale européenne BCE

16.1.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 11/14
            
         Appeal brought on 3 October 2009 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2009 in Case T-279/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Banque centrale européenne BCE
   (Case C-401/09 P)
   2010/C 11/25
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the European Central Bank to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order ECB to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant submits that the defendant's objection of inadmissibility, submitted together with the defence, should have been declared inadmissible due to the fact that it does not comply with article 114 of the rules of procedure of the CFI which expressly provides that such an objection must be submitted ‘by a separate document’. The appellant also submits that, by accepting the objection of inadmissibility and failing to comment on the appellant's arguments with respect to the objection, the CFI infringed article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
   In the appellant's view the CFI was wrong when it held that European Dynamics, because its bid was unacceptable, had no legal interest in seeking review of the decision of the contracting authority. The appellant also argues that the CFI erred by considering that it was necessary for the appellant to obtain an Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgenehmigung (AÜG) in order to offer its services lawfully.
   Finally the appellant submits that the CFI failed to apply the relevant legal provisions concerning the duty of the contracting authority to provide reasons for its decision.