- 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-476/07: Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0476
62007TN0476
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
23.2.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 51/55
(Case T-476/07)
(2008/C 51/100)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of FRONTEX to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful tenderer;
—order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 500 000 EUR;
—order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected;
—order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for an open tender for the provision of informatics services and hardware and software licences (OJ 2007/S 114 -139890). The applicant contests the defendant's decision of 3 October 2007 rejecting the applicant's bid and informing the applicant that the contract will be awarded to another tenderer.
In support of its application, the applicant submits that the defendant failed to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC and used evaluation criteria that were not expressly included in the call for tender. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment.