# C_2009044EN.01006501.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/65

---

Action brought on 23 December 2008 — Proges v Commission

(Case T-577/08)

(2009/C 44/110)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Proges srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Falcetta, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision, thereby giving rise to all consequential measures, including compensation for damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision, thereby giving rise to all consequential measures, including compensation for damages;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with all related fees and expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with all related fees and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the measure by which the Commission declined to award the applicant the contract covered by invitation to tender ENV.G.1./SER/2008/0050 for the creation of land use models and, in particular, for the assessment of environmental impact.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:

| — | the decision was incorrect in so far as it stated that the applicant's bid focused exclusively on the Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model; in any event, the tender specifications specifically require the integrated use of ‘social, economic and environmental institutional indicators of land use changes’, with DPSIR being the most internationally established tool for the management and integration of such indicators. Moreover, DPSIR has been developed and properly used by the European Environment Agency. The tool in fact proposed by the applicant is a DPSIR model updated in accordance with an innovative methodology and already successfully used in several projects of the United Nations and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision was incorrect in so far as it stated that the applicant's bid focused exclusively on the Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model; in any event, the tender specifications specifically require the integrated use of ‘social, economic and environmental institutional indicators of land use changes’, with DPSIR being the most internationally established tool for the management and integration of such indicators. Moreover, DPSIR has been developed and properly used by the European Environment Agency. The tool in fact proposed by the applicant is a DPSIR model updated in accordance with an innovative methodology and already successfully used in several projects of the United Nations and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN);

| — | contrary to what is stated in the contested decision, it is specifically stated in the applicant's bid that a land use model will be developed integrating the various models arising from the Sixth Framework Research Programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

contrary to what is stated in the contested decision, it is specifically stated in the applicant's bid that a land use model will be developed integrating the various models arising from the Sixth Framework Research Programme;

| — | there is no reason to doubt the appropriateness of involving the applicant's director in the implementation of the project; |
| --- | --- |

—

there is no reason to doubt the appropriateness of involving the applicant's director in the implementation of the project;

| — | geographical representativeness is rightly not referred to in the invitation to tender since the project is not concerned with development, integration and/or inter-European cohesion. Furthermore, it is not understood on what basis, for the purposes of assessing a company, European experience is deemed more valuable than the United Nations and IUCN experience possessed by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

geographical representativeness is rightly not referred to in the invitation to tender since the project is not concerned with development, integration and/or inter-European cohesion. Furthermore, it is not understood on what basis, for the purposes of assessing a company, European experience is deemed more valuable than the United Nations and IUCN experience possessed by the applicant.

---