Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:326
Date: 2008-09-10
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Approximation of laws;Freedom to provide services
Concepts: Statement of reasons;Rights of the defence and procedural guarantees;Extent of judicial review;General;Selection criteria;Award criteria;Assessment procedures;Scope
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Greece

Notice for the OJ Action brought on 2 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-59/05) Language of the case: English An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer. The applicant claims that the Court should: - annul the decision of the Commission (DG Agriculture), to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor; - order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal costs and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the application, even if the application is rejected. Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant company filed a bid in response to the Commission's call for tenders AGRI-2004-S4FA-I3-01 for the provision of information system development, maintenance and support services for the DG Agriculture Financial Information Systems1. By the contested decision this bid was rejected and the contract awarded to another bidder. In support of its application for annulment of that decision the applicant claims first of all the Commission violated the Financial Regulation2 as well as Article 17 (1) of Directive 92/503 by using evaluation criteria that were extremely vague. The applicant further contends that the Commission failed, in response to the applicant's questions, to explain in a clear and objective manner what precisely was requested of the tenderers. The applicant further considers that the Commission committed manifest errors of appreciation in its evaluation of the applicant's tender. In this respect the applicant contends that the Evaluation Committee did not correctly evaluate the offers, failing to take into account that contrary to the applicant both members of the successful consortium had extremely limited experience. The applicant also maintains that its own bid was more advantageous. The applicant also invokes a violation, by the Commission, of its obligation, under Article 253 EC, to state reasons and a failure to provide pertinent information requested by the applicant on the grounds for the rejection of its bid. The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the principle of good administration and diligence by acting with significant delay and by not offering adequate answers to the applicant's requests for information prior to the submission of the bids. ____________ 1 - OJ 2004 S 59-050031 2 - Coucil Regulatio (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 Jue 2002 o the Fiacial Regulatio applicable to the geeral budget of the Europea Commuities, OJ L 248 , 16/09/2002 p.1 3 - Council Directive 92/5/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 29 , 24/7/1992 p. 1