# C_2010063EN.01004902.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/49

---

Action brought on 22 January 2010 — Alisei v Commission

(Case T-16/10)

2010/C 63/87

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alisei (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, lawyer, R. Sciaudone, lawyer, A. Neri, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the rejection decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the rejection decision;

| — | annul the award decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the award decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, Alisei seeks:

| — | annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2009, by which the Commission (i) did not grant the application for funding which Alisei had submitted in response to the call for proposals on the theme ‘Facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries’ (EuropeAid/128608/C/ACT/Multi) and (ii) placed Alisei’s application on a reserve list; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2009, by which the Commission (i) did not grant the application for funding which Alisei had submitted in response to the call for proposals on the theme ‘Facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries’ (EuropeAid/128608/C/ACT/Multi) and (ii) placed Alisei’s application on a reserve list;

Facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries

| — | annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2009, by which the Commission selected the application for funding submitted by another organisation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2009, by which the Commission selected the application for funding submitted by another organisation;

| — | compensation for the damage suffered. |
| --- | --- |

—

compensation for the damage suffered.

It is submitted in that regard that, in accordance with the information set out in the call for proposals, Alisei proposed a direct action to improve production capacity in Sao Tomé and Principe, suggesting as local partner for those purposes an organisation experienced in the agricultural sector.

As its proposal was shortlisted, Alisei was asked to submit the full application by 15 September 2009.

On receiving no word as to the outcome of the evaluation of its bid, unlike the other organisations which had responded to the call for proposals, Alisei requested information by email of 17 November 2009. On the same day, the Commission answered that the reply had already been sent to all the participants but, in any event, appended a copy of the reply. By the contested decision, the European Commission informed Alisei that the evaluation committee had not selected the proposal that it had submitted with a view to the grant of funding and had decided to place its proposal on a reserve list which would remain valid until 31 December 2009. The Commission also stated that, should Alisei not be contacted before that deadline, it would no longer be taken into consideration for the purposes of a grant of funding in connection with that particular call for proposals.

In support of its application for annulment of the decision refusing its application for funding, Alisei pleads:

| — | breach of the duty to state reasons, in so far as the Commission had failed to indicate, even in summary form, the reasons for which Alisei’s application had been set aside and placed on a reserve list, and had refused, knowingly and expressly, the request for information in that regard; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the duty to state reasons, in so far as the Commission had failed to indicate, even in summary form, the reasons for which Alisei’s application had been set aside and placed on a reserve list, and had refused, knowingly and expressly, the request for information in that regard;

| — | breach of the principle of the transparency of administrative action, of the principle of equal treatment, and of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Commission had informed the other unsuccessful candidates of the reasons for their exclusion, while making the communication of the information to Alisei a function of the expiry of the validity of the reserve list. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principle of the transparency of administrative action, of the principle of equal treatment, and of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Commission had informed the other unsuccessful candidates of the reasons for their exclusion, while making the communication of the information to Alisei a function of the expiry of the validity of the reserve list.

In support of its application for annulment of the decision awarding the funding to the successful organisation, Alisei pleads:

| — | that the assessment made in the decision was erroneous and unfounded, in so far as the Commission selected for the grant of funding an application which had been submitted by an organisation with limited professional experience and insufficient technical capability and which was not an independent application, by contrast with those submitted by the other organisations and, in particular, with the application submitted by Alisei. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the assessment made in the decision was erroneous and unfounded, in so far as the Commission selected for the grant of funding an application which had been submitted by an organisation with limited professional experience and insufficient technical capability and which was not an independent application, by contrast with those submitted by the other organisations and, in particular, with the application submitted by Alisei.

Lastly, Alisei claims compensation for the damage suffered.

---