- 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-914/16: Action brought on 27 December 2016 — Proof IT v EIGE
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0914
62016TN0914
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
13.3.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 78/34
(Case T-914/16)
(2017/C 078/47)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)
Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality adopted in the procurement procedure for the award of a framework contract ‘Maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 1 and EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 2, notified to the applicant by letter of 14 October 2016, to reject the applicant’s tender and to award the framework contract to a third company;
—award damages to the applicant for loss of opportunity and/or for loss of the contract itself in the amount of EUR 128 480;
—order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by failing to interpret the award criteria in the same way throughout the entire procurement procedure.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by entirely re-evaluating the applicant’s tender, thus acting in an arbitrary manner giving rise to concerns about favouritism.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency since the award criteria are imprecise, thus conferring on the defendant an unrestricted freedom of choice as regards the awarding of the contract in question.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment in evaluating the applicant’s tender which, once corrected, would lead to a different result of the procurement procedure, i.e. the applicant’s tender should not have been rejected and the framework contract should have been awarded to the applicant.