Case T-211/02: Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-09-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), invitation to tender, limitation of legal proceedings, supplies contract

14.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219/23

Action brought on 12 July 2002 by the British Aggregates
Association Co Limited against the Commission of the
European Communities

certain sectors are not taxed in order to protect their competi-
tiveness. Therefore, the Levy must be considered to be State
Aid.

(Case T-210/02)

(2002/C 219/54)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 July 2002 by the British
Aggregates Association Co Limited, represented by Craig
Pouncey and Lode Van Den Hende of Herbert Smith, Brussels
(Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April
2002 ‘State Aid N 863/01- United Kingdom/Aggregates
Levy’ save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the

present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
is an association representing smaller and
independent quarrying companies in the United Kingdom.
The competitive position of its members is affected by the
Aggregates Levy, an environmental tax raised by the United
Kingdom on certain aggregates. The objective of the Levy is to
reflect the environmental impacts of aggregate quarrying more
fully in the price of aggregates. These environmental costs
include noise, dust, damage to biodiversity and visual amenity.
A further objective of the Levy is the encouragement of the
use of recycled or alternative material.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
to state reasons in the contested Decision, as required by
Article 253 EC Treaty. According to the applicant,
the
Commission also violated its obligation to initiate a formal
investigation procedure, where the preliminary investigation
was carried out in insufficient depth to resolve the serious
difficulties regarding the compatibility of the measure with the
State Aid provisions. The applicant also submits that the
Commission violated its procedural obligations in the prelimi-
nary investigation. In this respect, the applicant claims that
the Commission did not conduct a diligent and impartial
examination of the applicant’s complaint and did not provide
the applicant with an adequate explanation for rejecting its
arguments.

Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-211/02)

(2002/C 219/55)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal
Limited, represented by Christopher Thomas and Ciara Kenne-
dy of Lovells, Brussels (Belgium).

In the contested Decision, the Commission declared the Levy
to be compatible with the Common Market.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

According to the applicant, the Commission made a manifest
error of assessment in deciding that the distinction made
between taxable and non-taxable situations is justified by the
logic and nature of the tax system. The applicant claims,
however, that the objectives of the Levy cannot explain the
different treatment of similar situations. The applicant also
stated that the United Kingdom authorities admitted that

— annul the Commission Decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting
the tender submitted by Tideland Signal Limited in
tender procedure EUROPEAID/112336/C/S/WW-TACIS-
(RE-TENDER);

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the

applicant.

C 219/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.9.2002

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant submitted a tender for the delivery of buoys
to harbours in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan
following the supply procurement notice issued by the Com-
mission. The notice was subject to a corrigendum, after which
the applicant was given the opportunity to modify its tender.
Since the corrigendum did not give rise to any changes as
regards the applicant, it sent back the same tender unchanged
to the Commission. After this, the applicant was informed that
its tender was rejected, since it did not comply with the 90-
day validity period fixed for a tender from the date of its
submission.

The applicant considers that this Decision contains an error of
fact. The end date of the validity of the tender, i.e. 28 July
2002, was calculated from the date of the initial deadline of
29 April 2002. This date was not altered by the second
submission of the tender, following the corrigendum of the
notice by the Commission, since the applicant sent back the
same tender. The applicant claims, however, that it was clear
from the surrounding circumstances and other indications in
the tender that the tender was valid for 90 days from the
revised deadline of 11 June 2002 onwards.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission has
violated paragraph 19.5 of the Instructions to Tenderers, the
duty of care and the principle of proportionality. According to
paragraph 19.5 of these Instructions, the Commission can
require Tenderers to provide clarification of a tender within
24 hours. The applicant claims that other statements in the
tender and the surrounding circumstances in general should
have given rise to doubt which required clarification of the
duration of the tender’s validity. The Commission has not,
however, made use of this possibility.

— annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
PE/90/A of 3 April 2002 refusing to admit the applicant
to the next stages in the competition for having obtained
insufficient marks in one of the written tests (test C) and
annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
PE/90/A of 31 May 2002 confirming its decision of
3 April 2002 and rejecting the applicant’s request seeking
access to certain documents;

— annul the whole of the competition;

— at the very least, annul all the aspects and acts of the
competition subsequent to the unlawful elements of the
individual decisions of 3 April 2002 and 31 May 2002,
in particular, the list of successful candidates and the
appointments made on the basis of that list;

— in any event, order the defendant

the
necessary measures in order to restore the applicant’s
rights as a candidate who has passed tests A, B and C of
the competition in question;

to adopt all

— failing that, order the defendant to pay damages assessed,
to

time, at EUR 10 389,46, subject

at the material
increment;

— order the defendant to produce the corrected copy of
test C and general and objective assessment criteria, to
identify the publicly accessible documents which the
Board used when marking test C and to produce the
Board’s reasoned report;

Action brought on 15 July 2002 by María-Angeles Martí-
nez Valls against European Parliament

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case T-214/02)

(2002/C 219/56)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
15 July 2002 by María-Angeles Martínez Valls, residing in
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
Levi, lawyers.

The applicant alleges breach of the duty to provide reasons,
breach of the general principle of transparency, breach of the