# C_2005057EN.01003402.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/34

---

Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Belfass against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-495/04)

(2005/C 57/59)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 by Belfass, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union rejecting the two tenders entered by the applicant under call for tenders UCA 033/04 for the award of a contract for cleaning and maintenance services of two office buildings in Brussels; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union rejecting the two tenders entered by the applicant under call for tenders UCA 033/04 for the award of a contract for cleaning and maintenance services of two office buildings in Brussels;

| — | order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 1 481 317.65 together with interest, calculated at the rate of 7 % per annum, from the date on which the present action was brought, expressly subject to future increase, reduction or determination; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 1 481 317.65 together with interest, calculated at the rate of 7 % per annum, from the date on which the present action was brought, expressly subject to future increase, reduction or determination;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in the present case, a company specialising in the cleaning of offices which has been responsible since 1 January 1998 for the cleaning of certain offices of the General Secretariat of the Council, challenges the rejection by the defendant of two tenders submitted by the applicant in respect of a tender relating to the conclusion of a contract for cleaning and general services to be performed in the ‘Woluwe Heights’ (lot 1) and ‘Frère Orban’ (lot 2) buildings.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

| — | the existence in the present case of a manifest error of assessment in that, in order to reject the tender relating to lot 1, the defendant claims that the average hourly rate under that tender is less than the minimum wage laid down by the Union générale belge du nettoyage (Belgian General Cleaning Union) for category 1A, on 1 July 2004, whereas a precise analysis of the figures in the applicant's tender shows that the average hourly rate thereunder is above the minimum figure set by the Union générale belge du nettoyage; |
| --- | --- |

—

the existence in the present case of a manifest error of assessment in that, in order to reject the tender relating to lot 1, the defendant claims that the average hourly rate under that tender is less than the minimum wage laid down by the Union générale belge du nettoyage (Belgian General Cleaning Union) for category 1A, on 1 July 2004, whereas a precise analysis of the figures in the applicant's tender shows that the average hourly rate thereunder is above the minimum figure set by the Union générale belge du nettoyage;

| — | infringement of the principles of sound administration and non-discrimination and the existence in the present case of a manifest error of assessment in that the tender relating to lot 2 was rejected, without further consideration, on the sole ground that the total number of hours of work under that tender was less by more than 12.5 % than the average number of hours under the other tenders received for the contract in question, whereas by using that criterion the contested decision favours the most expensive tenders providing for invoicing of an elevated number of hours, without any objective purpose. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principles of sound administration and non-discrimination and the existence in the present case of a manifest error of assessment in that the tender relating to lot 2 was rejected, without further consideration, on the sole ground that the total number of hours of work under that tender was less by more than 12.5 % than the average number of hours under the other tenders received for the contract in question, whereas by using that criterion the contested decision favours the most expensive tenders providing for invoicing of an elevated number of hours, without any objective purpose.

---