- 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-477/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg e.a. v ECHA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0477
62015TN0477
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
3.11.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 363/40
(Case T-477/15)
(2015/C 363/49)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri, lawyer)
Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure ECHA/2014/86 communicated to the applicants in its letter of 25 June 2014, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another consortium;
—order the defendant to provide the applicants with the compensation of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract, for the amount of 520,000 euros; and
—order the defendant 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 applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that ECHA infringed the obligation to state reasons within the evaluation of their tender by not providing the relative advantages of the winning tender.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA committed several manifest errors of assessment within the evaluation of their offer and subsidiarily that it introduced new and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers.