# C_2013260EN.01004402.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/44

---

Action brought on 5 July 2013 — European Space Imaging v Commission

(Case T-357/13)

2013/C 260/80

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Space Imaging GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: W. Trautner, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2013 concerning the annulment of the restricted procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2013 concerning the annulment of the restricted procedure;

| — | annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2013 to hold a new procurement procedure by way of an open procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2013 to hold a new procurement procedure by way of an open procedure;

| — | 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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
  The applicant claims that, by annulling the procurement procedure for the supply of satellite remote sensing data and associated services in support of checks within the common agricultural policy (OJ 2012/S 183 299769), the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation. (1) The applicant claims in that connection, inter alia, that the Commission’s course of action runs counter to the general principle that the annulment of a procurement procedure should be a measure of last resort (‘ultima ratio’). The applicant is of the view that the Commission ought to have requested candidates to submit specific offers before it could decide that in fact no economic offer would be considered. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

The applicant claims that, by annulling the procurement procedure for the supply of satellite remote sensing data and associated services in support of checks within the common agricultural policy (OJ 2012/S 183 299769), the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation. (1) The applicant claims in that connection, inter alia, that the Commission’s course of action runs counter to the general principle that the annulment of a procurement procedure should be a measure of last resort (‘ultima ratio’). The applicant is of the view that the Commission ought to have requested candidates to submit specific offers before it could decide that in fact no economic offer would be considered.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of transparency
  The applicant claims in this plea that by refusing to give specific information on the grounds for annulling the procurement procedure, the Commission infringed the principle of transparency laid down in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation. In particular, the applicant is not able to ascertain whether the grounds alleged are applicable. The applicant moreover claims that the highly specialised nature of the relevant market for the supply of satellite remote sensing data means that the number of potential tenderers is very limited and alleges that, prior to its decision to annul the procurement procedure, the Commission failed to make it known that there was a possibility that the procedure would be annulled if a given number of applicants was not reached. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of transparency

The applicant claims in this plea that by refusing to give specific information on the grounds for annulling the procurement procedure, the Commission infringed the principle of transparency laid down in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation. In particular, the applicant is not able to ascertain whether the grounds alleged are applicable. The applicant moreover claims that the highly specialised nature of the relevant market for the supply of satellite remote sensing data means that the number of potential tenderers is very limited and alleges that, prior to its decision to annul the procurement procedure, the Commission failed to make it known that there was a possibility that the procedure would be annulled if a given number of applicants was not reached.

---

(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, 16.9.2002, p. 1).

1

---