- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-74/15: Action brought on 17 February 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki/Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0074
62015TN0074
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
26.5.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 171/25
(Case T-74/15)
(2015/C 171/30)
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: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul the decision of the Commission (ESTAT/G0/MHF/Gl/MH/nf D (2014) of 8 December 2014), notified to the applicants as an attachment to Customer Additional Information Form DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-O1-CINF-03 of 9 December 2014, which rejected their offer in relation to the Request for services No DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-01 within the context of framework contract ESP DESIS III Lot no 4,
—annul the decision of the Commission, notified to the applicants as an attachment to Customer Additional Information Form DESIS 111-000485-6000494078- REQ-01-CINF-02 of 12 December 2014, which rejected their offer in relation to the Request for Services No DESIS III-000485-6000494078-REQ-0l, within the context of framework contract ESP-DESIS III Lot no 4,
—order the Commission to pay the applicants’ damages suffered for the loss of opportunity in the case of DESIS ill-000485-6000494078-REQ-OI-CINF-02, for an amount of 12 000,00 euros, plus interest,
—order the Commission 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 two pleas in law.
Firstly, the applicants argue that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reason within the evaluation of their offers in DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-01 and DESIS III-000485-6000494078-REQ-01.
Secondly, the applicants argue that the Commission committed several manifest errors of assessment within the evaluation of their offer in DESIS 111-000485-6000494078-REQ-01.