CELEX: 62016TA0914
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-914/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Proof IT v EIGE (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Request for services that were split into two lots — Management consultancy services — Maintenance and updating of statistical tools and resources — Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer — Award criteria — Transparency — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

26.11.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 427/48
            
         
      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Proof IT v EIGE
      (Case T-914/16) (1)
      
      (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Request for services that were split into two lots - Management consultancy services - Maintenance and updating of statistical tools and resources - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Award criteria - Transparency - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
      (2018/C 427/60)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (represented by: J. Stuyck, V. Ost and M.Vanderstraeten, lawyers)
      
         Re:
      
      Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of EIGE’s decision, communicated to the applicant by the letter with reference EIGE/VL/mpD/2016/594 of 14 October 2016, rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of both lots relating to invitation to tender EIGE/2016/OPER/01 entitled ‘Framework contract on maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ and awarding the framework contract to another tenderer and, second, under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant in respect of loss of opportunity or loss of the contract itself.
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Court:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Dismisses the action;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Orders Proof IT SIA to pay the costs.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.