# C_2008209EN.01006201.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/62

---

Action brought on 20 June 2008 — C-Content v Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

(Case T-247/08)

(2008/C 209/111)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: C-Content BV ('s Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, advocaat)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (Publications Office) infringed Community law in relation to tenders and contracts set out in the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (Publications Office) infringed Community law in relation to tenders and contracts set out in the present application;

| — | Order the Publications Office to compensate the costs and damages incurred by the applicant, as set out in the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Publications Office to compensate the costs and damages incurred by the applicant, as set out in the present application;

| — | Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the damages it claims to have incurred as a result of the alleged irregularities committed by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (Publications Office) within certain tender procedures related to electronic publication services.

The applicant puts forward a number of grounds for liability for every contested tender procedure.

The applicant claims the Publications Office infringed the principle of good administration and duty diligence as well as the principles of equal treatment, transparency and legitimate expectations:

| 1. | In tender No 2034 for the production and duplication of CD-ROMs containing the L and C series of the Official journal: by awarding the tender to a competitor of the applicant, in spite of the applicant having submitted the economically most advantageous bid; by amending the key specifications and lowering tender requirements during the tender procedure or after the successful tenderer had been selected without informing other competitors; by refusing to carry out a proper review of the tender results when objections concerning the outcome of the tender were brought to the Publications Office's attention; by failing to organise a new tender instead of continuing contract No 2034 on the basis of significantly lowered standards. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In tender No 2034 for the production and duplication of CD-ROMs containing the L and C series of the Official journal: by awarding the tender to a competitor of the applicant, in spite of the applicant having submitted the economically most advantageous bid; by amending the key specifications and lowering tender requirements during the tender procedure or after the successful tenderer had been selected without informing other competitors; by refusing to carry out a proper review of the tender results when objections concerning the outcome of the tender were brought to the Publications Office's attention; by failing to organise a new tender instead of continuing contract No 2034 on the basis of significantly lowered standards.

| 2. | In tender No 6019 for the provision of services in relation to electronic publications, in particular the Supplement (S) of the Official Journal, after the accession of 10 new member States: by cancelling the tender on the basis of Article 101 of Regulation 1605/2002 (1) for reason of disclosure of confidential information; the applicant submits that the said disclosure could not have influenced the tender results as the information was already in the public knowledge and the bids had already been submitted by then. Moreover, the applicant claims that there was no proper motivation given by the Publications Office. It finally submits that the cancellation caused significant damage to the applicant which had submitted the most advantageous of the two remaining bids within the cancelled tender. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In tender No 6019 for the provision of services in relation to electronic publications, in particular the Supplement (S) of the Official Journal, after the accession of 10 new member States: by cancelling the tender on the basis of Article 101 of Regulation 1605/2002 (1) for reason of disclosure of confidential information; the applicant submits that the said disclosure could not have influenced the tender results as the information was already in the public knowledge and the bids had already been submitted by then. Moreover, the applicant claims that there was no proper motivation given by the Publications Office. It finally submits that the cancellation caused significant damage to the applicant which had submitted the most advantageous of the two remaining bids within the cancelled tender.

1

| 3. | In tender No 1695 for the provision of services in relation to electronic publications, in particular the Supplement (S) of the Official Journal: by using the extension of Contract No 1695 to amend it. The applicant claims that there was no legal basis for the Publications Office to proceed or to authorise the extension of the Contract and, in consequence, to amend it by changing the subcontractor. The applicant submits that the Publications Office failed to seriously negotiate or investigate the possibility of maintaining the applicant as the existing main subcontractor during the remaining period. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In tender No 1695 for the provision of services in relation to electronic publications, in particular the Supplement (S) of the Official Journal: by using the extension of Contract No 1695 to amend it. The applicant claims that there was no legal basis for the Publications Office to proceed or to authorise the extension of the Contract and, in consequence, to amend it by changing the subcontractor. The applicant submits that the Publications Office failed to seriously negotiate or investigate the possibility of maintaining the applicant as the existing main subcontractor during the remaining period.

The applicant claims that as a direct result of the abovementioned infringements, it lost its position as the Publications Office's software provider and incurred significant costs, damages and loss of profits and it considers the Publications Office to be liable to compensate them.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248 p. 1).

1

---