- 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-407/07: Action brought on 8 November 2007 — CMB and Christof v Commission and EAR
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0407
62007TN0407
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
12.1.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 8/22
(Case T-407/07)
(2008/C 8/39)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: CMB Maschinenbau & Handels GmbH (Gratkorn, Austria) and J. Christof GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Petsche, N. Niejahr and Q. Azau, lawyers, and F. Young, Solicitor)
Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Agency for Reconstruction
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision;
—order the EAR to produce certain documents;
—order the EAR to pay damages in respect of the loss suffered by the applicants in the amounts of EUR 26 862,17 and EUR 3 197 968,80 for costs and lost profit, plus compensatory interest from the date on which the damage materialised;
—order the EAR to pay interest on the damages from the date of judgment;
—order the EAR and the Commission to pay their own costs and the applicants' costs in connection with these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants contest the European Agency for Reconstruction's decision of 29 August 2007 confirming the rejection of the applicants' bid and the award of the contract to another tenderer relating to the tender notice EuropeAid/124192/D/SUP/YU (OJ 2006/S 233-248823) for the supply, delivery, installation, after-sales service and training in the use of supplies for treatment and transport of medical waste throughout the Republic of Serbia (excluding Kosovo). The applicants further request compensation for the alleged damages caused by the decision.
In support of their application, the applicants submit that the contracting authority violated the award criteria for the tender, as the offer of the successful tenderer did not meet the technical specifications.
Furthermore, the applicants allege that the contracting authority violated the applicable procurement procedure, that it did not state reasons and that it breached the principle of sound administration.