15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/28

(Case T-698/14)

(2014/C 448/37)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (Ettelbruck, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—annul the European Commission decision No DIGIT/R/3/MB/pt 2431467 (2014) of 11/07/2014, whereby the Commission classified the applicants’ tender in fourth position in the call for tenders at issue with respect to Lot 1;

—annul the European Commission decision DIGIT/R/3/MB/pt 2703722 (2014) of 31/07/2014, whereby the Commission eliminated the applicants’ tender in the call for tenders at issue with respect to Lot 2;

—annul the European Commission decision DIGIT/R/3/MB/pt 2711165 (2014) 31/07/2014, whereby the Commission classified the applicants’ tender in third position in the call for tenders at issue with respect to Lot 3;

—order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants in respect of the lost opportunity to be classified in first position for the three lots of the framework contract, which they estimate at eight hundred thousand euros (EUR 800 000) with respect to Lot 1, four hundred thousand euros (EUR 400 000) with respect to Lot 2 and two hundred thousand euros (EUR 200 000) with respect to Lot 3, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment, and

—order the Commission to pay the entirety of the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants maintain that the contested decisions, by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s tender in the open call for tenders No DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/029 — ESP DESIS III for three separate projects (lots), should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, by reason of infringement of rules of EU law and, in particular, for the following three reasons:

First, by reason of the Commission’s infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since it provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regards to the applicants’ technical tender.

Second, by reason of the Commission’s infringement of the Financial Regulation and the rules for its application and of the tendering documents, with regard to the question of abnormally low tenders.

Second, by reason of the Commission’s infringement of the principle of free competition, since the Commission imposed binding conditions with regard to the submission of the financial tenders and did not permit the tenderers freely to construct their financial tenders, in order to choose the most economically advantageous tender.