Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2009:163
Date: 2009-05-20
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Public procurement in the European Union
Concepts: Statement of reasons;General;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Extent of judicial review;Assessment in concreto
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful;Action for damages - inadmissible
Origin: France

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its power of review. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (orders in Case T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II‑523, paragraph 20, and Case T‑294/04 Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission [2005] ECR II‑2719, paragraph 23). 97 In the present case, the applicant does not specify the measures to which its third head of claim relates and does not put forward any arguments in support of its request. 98 Accordingly, the third head of claim must be dismissed as inadmissible. The claim for compensation Arguments of the parties 99 In its application the applicant claims that the Parliament should be ordered to pay EUR 500 000 in damages. 100 In its reply, the applicant points out that it met all the conditions for award of the contract. Consequently, the Parliament infringed all of the rules of law governing the award of the contract and the applicant’s claim for damages is admissible. 101 With regard to the damage sustained, the applicant states that it suffered economically by not being the undertaking to which the contract was awarded. It was unable to benefit from the advantages that it was legitimately entitled to expect. 102 The Parliament contends that the applicant’s claim for damages is inadmissible. Findings of the Court 103 According to settled case-law, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers there to be a causal link between that conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage (Case T‑38/96 Guérin automobiles v Commission [1997] ECR II‑1223, paragraph 42, and Case T‑19/01 Chiquita Brands and Others v Commission [2005] ECR II‑315, paragraph 65). 104 In the present case, it must be found that the claim for damages contained in the application, which is merely the subject of a head of claim, lacks even the most basic details. 105 Even supposing that the application stated the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the Parliament can be identified, it is silent as to the nature and character of the alleged damage and the reasons for which the applicant considers there to be a causal link between that conduct and the damage. 106 Furthermore, and even supposing that it would have been admissible to do so, the applicant has not in fact attempted to remedy these omissions in its reply. 107 It follows that as far as the claim for damages is concerned the application does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 44(1) (c) of the Rules of Procedure. 108 In those circumstances, the claim for damages must be declared inadmissible. The request to instruct the Parliament to organise a proper procedure for calls for tenders 109 At the stage of the reply, the applicant asked the Court to instruct the Parliament to organise a proper procedure for calls for tenders. 110 Under Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure an applicant is required to state in the application the subject-matter of the proceedings and the form of order sought. Although Article 48(2) of those rules authorises, in certain circumstances, new pleas in law to be introduced in the course of proceedings, the provision cannot in any circumstances be interpreted as authorising the applicant to bring new claims before the Court and thereby to modify the subject-matter of the proceedings (Case T‑28/90 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2285, paragraph 43, and Case T‑2/99 T. Port v Council [2001] ECR II‑2093, paragraph 34; see also, by analogy, Case 232/78 Commission v France [1979] ECR 2729, paragraph 3). 111 It follows that the head of claim requesting that the Court instruct the Parliament to organise a proper procedure for calls for tenders must be dismissed as inadmissible. 112 For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that in an action for annulment founded on Article 230 EC, the jurisdiction of the Community judicature is confined to reviewing the legality of the contested measure and that, according to settled case-law, the Court cannot, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, issue directions to the Community institutions (Case C‑5/93 P DSM v Commission [1999] ECR I‑4695, paragraph 36, and Case T‑145/98 ADT Projekt v Commission [2000] ECR II‑387, paragraph 83). If the contested measure is annulled, it is for the institution concerned to adopt, in accordance with Article 233 EC, the necessary measures to comply with the judgment annulling that measure (Case T‑67/94 Ladbroke Racing v Commission [1998] ECR II‑1, paragraph 200, and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission, cited in paragraph 56 above, paragraph 35). Costs 113 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. Since the Parliament has been unsuccessful, and the applicant has applied for costs, it must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Sixth Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls the decision by which the European Parliament refused to award the contract under tender procedure PE/2006/06/UTD/1 to VIP Car Solutions SARL; 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs. Meij Vadapalas Moavero Milanesi Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 20 May 2009. [Signatures] * Language of the case: French.