EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-229/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Banking Authority

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0229

62015TN0229

May 4, 2015
With Google you find a lot.
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

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/31

(Case T-229/15)

(2015/C 262/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Banking Authority (EBA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

annul the decision of the EBA which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 02/03/2015 from the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority, whereby the EBA rejected the applicants’ tender with respect to Lot 1 within the framework of the restricted tendering procedure 2014/S 158 283576 (EBA/2014/06/OPS/SER/RT), titled ‘Supply of interim staff, Lot No 1: Supply of interim staff for Information Technology’;

order the EBA to compensate the applicants for the loss of the opportunity to be ranked in first place in Lot 1 of the EBA/2014/06/OPS/SER/RT framework agreement, which the applicants estimate ex aequo et bono at three hundred thousand euros (EUR 3 00 000), with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or such other sum as the General Court deems appropriate; and

order the EBA to pay the applicants’ costs in full.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1.The first plea claims a breach by the EBA of the obligation to state reasons, since it provided an inadequate statement of reasons with respect to the assessment of the applicants’ technical tender.

2.The second plea claims an infringement of the contractual documents and of EU law in respect that there were manifest errors of assessment.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia