# C_2008092EN.01003402.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/34

---

Action brought on 1 February 2008 — Vakakis v Commission

(Case T-41/08)

(2008/C 92/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vakakis International — Symvouli gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O'Connor, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | To declare this application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

To declare this application admissible;

| — | to annul the unreasoned decision of the European Commission of 6 December 2007 (Reference No A3 TF TCC(2007)106233) not to invite the consortium led by Vakakis International SA to be interviewed in respect of the service tender procedure ‘Technical Assistance to Support Rural Development Policy’ number EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY; |
| --- | --- |

—

to annul the unreasoned decision of the European Commission of 6 December 2007 (Reference No A3 TF TCC(2007)106233) not to invite the consortium led by Vakakis International SA to be interviewed in respect of the service tender procedure ‘Technical Assistance to Support Rural Development Policy’ number EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY;

| — | to annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 December 2007 (Reference No A3 TF TCC(2007)106667) to reject the tender submitted by Vakakis International SA on the basis that it did not meet the technical requirements; |
| --- | --- |

—

to annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 December 2007 (Reference No A3 TF TCC(2007)106667) to reject the tender submitted by Vakakis International SA on the basis that it did not meet the technical requirements;

| — | pursuant to Article 65(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to request the Commission to provide certain documents in relation to the activities of the evaluation committee established to review the tenders submitted in respect of the EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY tender procedure as well as the establishment of the short list of tenderers; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 65(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to request the Commission to provide certain documents in relation to the activities of the evaluation committee established to review the tenders submitted in respect of the EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY tender procedure as well as the establishment of the short list of tenderers;

| — | to make any additional order which the Court considers necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

to make any additional order which the Court considers necessary;

| — | to order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Commission's letter of 6 December 2007 informing the applicant it would not be invited to interview constitutes a decision which lacks sufficient reasoning in breach of Article 253 EC. Moreover, the applicant submits that this stage is an essential element of the tender procedure to which all tenderers, even those failing to meet the technical standard required, should be invited in order to maintain a competitive environment. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the said decision is legally flawed since it is based on non-compliance with the administrative criteria instead of non-compliance to the technical standard required. This amounts, according to the applicant, to a misuse of powers conferred to the Commission in the framework of the tenders' evaluation procedure.

In addition, and with regards to both the above-mentioned decision and the decision of 21 December 2007, the applicant submits that they are incompatible with the terms of the Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for EC External actions. Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission decision of 21 December 2007 purported to justify an unreasoned earlier decision excluding the applicant from the tender and therefore is legally flawed.

---