CELEX: 62017TN0320
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-320/17: Action brought on 25 May 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIF

7.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 256/31
            
         Action brought on 25 May 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIF
   (Case T-320/17)
   (2017/C 256/37)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri and C-N. Dede, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Investment Fund (EIF)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the defendant’s award decision disclosed to the applicants on 16 March 2017 regarding the tender filed by the applicants in response to the open procurement procedure (reference 2016-MIBO_IPA_PPI-002) by which they were informed that their bid had not been ranked as the most economically advantageous tender;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the applicants exemplary damages reaching the amount of EUR 100 000 (one hundred thousand Euros); and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the the defendant infringed the EU law on public procurement, the principles of transparency and the provisions of the directives on public procurement, together with the EIF Practical Guide, by not communicating to the applicants the scores awarded in each award criterion to the winning tender and a detailed analysis of the strong and weak points of their tender in relation to those of the winning tender. The applicants argue that the defendant acted in breach of the principle of sound administration by adversely affecting the applicants’ right to an effective remedy against the contested decision.