CELEX: 62012TN0040
Language: en
Date: 2012-01-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-40/12: Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)

14.4.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 109/18
            
         Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)
   (Case T-40/12)
   2012/C 109/40
   Language of the case: Greek
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by V. Khristianos, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   By this action the applicants claim that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision dated 22 Νovember 2011 of the European Police Office (Europol), whereby Europol excluded the consortium’s bid by which the applicants participated in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104, and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order EUROPOL to pay the applicants’ entire costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The applicants consider that the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU and put forward the following argument, which encompasses three considerations:
   
                
            
            
               First, Europol without any justification excluded the applicants’ bid, maintaining that the applicants altered the technical and financial terms of their bid, with the consequence that Europol has no legal basis for its decision to exclude the applicants.
            
         
                
            
            
               Second, Europol had no justification for its complaint to the applicants that their bid was inaccurate and for excluding it, when it was Europol which caused and consented to or condoned the existence of vagueness and lack of clarity as to the meaning of the terms ‘out of the box’ and ‘customisation’, contrary to the principle of transparency.
            
         
                
            
            
               Third, Europol, by excluding the applicants’ bid from the tendering procedure, infringed the principle of proportionality in the application of the terms of the contractual documents.