C_2009019EN.01001302.xml

24.1.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/13

Appeal brought on 6 November 2008 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2008 in Case T-59/05 Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-476/08 P)

(2009/C 19/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, P. Katsimani, Δικηγόροι)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

—	Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance;

—	annul the decision of the Commission (DG Agriculture) to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

—	order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal against the judgment T-59/05 of the Court of First Instance on the following grounds:

It is submitted that the Court of First Instance committed a breach of procedure by refusing to recognise an evident discrepancy between the award criteria as set out in section 5.2 of the EvCo Report and those mentioned in section 5.4 of the same Report and by misinterpreting the relevant procedural rules on the burden of proof. More specifically, the Court of First Instance does not refer to any evidence in support of its qualification as ‘typographical error’ of an obvious discrepancy, and no such evidence can by any means be deduced from the content of the Evaluation Report itself.

Further, the judgment fails to observe the consequences of the Commission's infringement of its duty of diligence and of the principle of good administration. Since the Court of First Instance, despite observing that the Commission infringed the rule of law, did not proceed into annulling the Commission's Decision on this ground, the Court of First Instance undoubtedly failed in applying the relevant provisions.

It is submitted that the Court of First Instance also failed to apply the relevant provisions on the duty of the contracting authority to provide reasons, which would lead it to annul the award decision; only scores and some general comments from the Evaluation Report have been submitted to the Appellant by the letter of 10 December 2004. In this sense the Court of First Instance distorted the evidence adduced before it, and for this reason its judgment should be annulled.