CELEX: 62011TN0498
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-498/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

26.11.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 347/37
            
         Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-498/11)
   2011/C 347/68
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union rejecting the offer submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure-Invitation to specific tender no. 10369 ‘Revamping of the OLAF website’ implementing Competitive Multiple Framework Service Contract no. 10224 lot 1, and related decisions of the Publications Office including the one to award the respective contract to a sucessful tenderer and selected contractor;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant 31 977 EUR (euros) in damages;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In addition, order the Publications Office to pay the applicant 20 000 EUR (euros) in damages for the loss of opportunity and detriment to its reputation and credibility; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with present application.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the tender specifications, using the award criterion contrary to Article 97 of the Financial Regulation and 138 of the Implementing Rules; and
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, vague and unsubstantiated comments of the Evaluation Committee, modification of the award criteria included in the original call for tenders and not communicating to tenderers criteria introduced a posteriori in due time.