# C_2005115EN.01003701.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/37

---

Action brought on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und Ingenieurtechnik GmbH Dresden against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-125/05)

(2005/C 115/66)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und Ingenieurtechnik GmbH Dresden, Dresden (Germany), represented by H. Robl, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 23 December 2004 refusing to award a contract to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 23 December 2004 refusing to award a contract to the applicant;

| — | annul the decision of 23 December 2004 awarding a contract to All Trade S.r.l; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 23 December 2004 awarding a contract to All Trade S.r.l;

| — | 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 challenges the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2004 not to award the applicant Public Contract No AIDCO/A6/FP/co/2004/D/45370, Contract No 90-127 in the tender procedure 'Plan Improvement Project for South Ukraine NPP,' concerning a measure to introduce an intelligent control system for water quality in the nuclear power station in South Ukraine. The applicant also challenges the simultaneous decision to award this contract to the competitor All Trade S.r.l.

The applicant argues that the Commission:

| — | erroneously assessed that the applicant's tender did not comply with point 2.2.6 of the technical specification, although all of the services offered by the applicant fully satisfied the specification and this was confirmed by references, |
| --- | --- |

—

erroneously assessed that the applicant's tender did not comply with point 2.2.6 of the technical specification, although all of the services offered by the applicant fully satisfied the specification and this was confirmed by references,

| — | erroneously stated that the applicant did not comply with points 2.3.1 and 2.3.4 of the technical specification due to insufficient explanations and information, although the applicant's explanations were both extensive and exhaustive, and |
| --- | --- |

—

erroneously stated that the applicant did not comply with points 2.3.1 and 2.3.4 of the technical specification due to insufficient explanations and information, although the applicant's explanations were both extensive and exhaustive, and

| — | breached the duty to provide clarification and exceeded its discretion. |
| --- | --- |

—

breached the duty to provide clarification and exceeded its discretion.

The applicant contends further that in assessing the price, the Commission incorrectly, and in breach of the requirements of paragraph 1.3 of the instructions to tenders based its decision solely on the basic tender price and thus, in spite of their relevance, the pricing of spare parts and maintenance costs were not taken into consideration.

Finally, the applicant submits that the competitor All Trade S.r.l. does not provide any guarantee, either by its expertise or financial standing or by its technical experience, that it will successfully carry out the project in question.

---