Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:484
Date: 2008-11-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Financial provisions;Public procurement in the European Union
Concepts: Statement of reasons;Equal treatment and transparency;Extent of judicial review;Assessment in concreto;Limits
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Greece

summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. It is settled case-law that the information given must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to give a ruling, if necessary without other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, if an action is to be admissible, the essential facts and law on which it is based must be apparent from the text of the application itself, at the very least summarily, provided that the statement is coherent and comprehensible (Case T-387/94 Asia Motor Finance and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-961, paragraph 106). 132 The Court considers however that, in the circumstances in the present case, there is no need to rule on the Commission’s argument founded on the inadmissibility of the application for damages, since the forms of order sought by the applicant must, in any event, be rejected on their merits (see, to that effect, Case C‑23/00 P Council v Boehringer [2002] ECR I‑1873, paragraph 52; Case C-233/02 France v Commission [2004] ECR I-2759, paragraph 26; and Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council [2005] ECR II-4355, paragraph 32, confirmed on appeal by judgment of 22 November 2007 in Case C‑6/06 P Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 21). 133 In accordance with settled case-law, for the Community to incur liability, the applicant must prove the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the institution concerned, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of (Case T-175/94 International Procurement Services v Commission [1996] ECR II-729, paragraph 44; see also to that effect Case T-336/94 Efisol v Commission [1996] ECR II-1343, paragraph 30; and Case T-267/94 Oleifici Italiani v Commission [1997] ECR II‑1239, paragraph 20). Where one of those conditions is not fulfilled, the action must therefore be dismissed in its entirety and it is not necessary to examine the other conditions for that liability (Case C‑146/91 KYDEP v Council and Commission [1994] ECR I-4199, paragraph 19, and Strabag Benelux v Commission, cited in paragraph 50 above, paragraph 83). 134 It is apparent from the Court’s findings on the application for annulment that the applicant has not proved unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission. 135 Accordingly, the application for damages must be dismissed. Costs 136 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 137 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful in all the forms of order it sought, and the Commission has applied for costs, the applicant must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission. Tiili Dehousse Wiszniewska-Białecka Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 November 2008. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.