# C_2005106EN.01002702.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/27

---

Action brought on 28 January 2005 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-50/05)

(2005/C 106/60)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by European Dynamics SA, established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the decision of the Commission (DG TAXUD), 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 costs and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the application, even if the application is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal costs and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the application, even if the application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company filed a bid in response to the Commission's call for tenders TAXUD/2004/AO-004 for the specification, development, maintenance and support of telematic systems to control the movements of products subject to excise duty within the European Community. By the contested decision this bid was rejected and the contract awarded to another bidder.

In support of its application for annulment of that decision the applicant claims first of all that the Commission violated the principle of non-discrimination and of free competition. The unavailability of exact specifications for the EMCS system prevented tenderers from presenting their expertise in a targeted manner in the specific areas that were important for the project. The access to privileged information by the previous and current contractors constituted a major and exclusive advantage for them. The applicant claims that its timely request for equal access rights to such applications and documentation should have been accepted. According to the applicant, even though the Commission had the opportunity to remedy this situation it did not take appropriate measures to do so.

The applicant further submits that the Commission violated Article 97(1) of the Financial Regulation (1) as well as Article 17(1) of Directive 92/50 (2) by using evaluation criteria that were extremely vague and were not accompanied by clear quantifiable parameters.

1

2

The applicant further considers that the Commission committed manifest errors of appreciation in its evaluation of the applicant's tender. In this respect the applicant contends that any deficiencies of its bid were due to the Commission's failure to communicate critical elements required by the applicant in order to prepare its bid. The applicant further contests each of the statements contained in the report of the Evaluation Committee.

The applicant also invokes a violation, by the Commission, of its obligation, under Article 253 EC, to state reasons and a failure to provide pertinent information requested by the applicant on the grounds for the rejection of its bid. The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the principle of good administration and diligence by acting with significant delay and by not offering adequate answers to the applicant's requests for information prior to the submission of the bids.

---

(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 L 248, 16/09/2002 p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 209, 24/07/1992 p. 1.

2

---