CELEX: 62011CN0235
Language: en
Date: 2011-05-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-235/11 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

16.7.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 211/17
            
         Appeal brought on 17 May 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case C-235/11 P)
   2011/C 211/34
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the decision of the General Court,
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Commission (DG ENVI) to reject the bids submitted by the applicant for each of the three lots relating to open Invitation to Tender DG ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 ‘Framework contract for Emission Trading Scheme — CITL/CR’ (2008/S72-096229) and to award those contracts to another tenderer,
            
         
               —
            
            
               Refer the case to the General Court in order that the latter examines the remaining issues in both Lots, including the request for Damages, not examined yet by the GC,
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those 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 contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:
   
               —
            
            
               Manifest error of assessment and insufficient reasoning.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Misinterpretation by the General Court of art. 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and of art. 149 of the implementing rules (2) in relation to its appreciation of the obligation to state reasons of the contracting authority.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The General Court erred in law by not accepting the appellant’s arguments concerning the infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 248, p. 1
   
      (2)  OJ L 357, p. 1