Case T-345/02: Action brought on 21 November 2002 by European Dynamics against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-01-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Eurostat, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, invitation to tender, public contract, software

25.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/39

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

By his application, the applicant seeks the annulment of the
decision of the appointing authority rejecting his complaint
requesting the annulment of the elections to the local staff
committee in Luxembourg of November 2001.

the list put

According to the applicant,
forward by the
‘Solidarité Européenne’ union obtained only one of the 20
seats to be filled on the local staff committee, whereas the
number of votes for the members of that union constituted
25,523 % of the total votes cast.

In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of Article 9(3) of the Staff Regulations,

— infringement of Article 1 of Annex II

to the Staff

Regulations,

1.

2.

3.

annul the Commission’s (EUROSTAT) decision to elimin-
ate European Dynamics from the procurement procedure
for the Call for Tenders 2002/S 106-083279 - Lot 1 for
the ‘Further development of the Collaborative Software
CIRCA’;

order the Commission (EUROSTAT)
to evaluate the
tender submitted by European Dynamics in the above
mentioned procurement procedure and allow European
Dynamics to participate fully and on the same basis as all
the other tenderers;

order the Commission to pay European Dynamics’ legal
and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with
this application.

— infringement of Article 6 of the rules on the composition

and functioning of the staff committee,

Pleas in law and main arguments

— manifest error of assessment.

The applicant claims that the abovementioned provisions
require a faithful representation, on the local staff committee,
of all the tendencies expressed through the ballot box. Such
representation is not sufficiently guaranteed where more than
a quarter of the total votes cast by officials results in the
appointment of only 1/20th of the members of the staff
committee.

for ‘Eurostat

The applicant is a company involved in the area of information
technology and communications. It participated in the Call for
information
Tenders 2002/S 106 -083279,
systems: information and communication technologies for the
Community statistical system’ and, more particularly, Lot 1 of
the Call for Tenders, ‘further development of the collaborative
software CIRCA’. The applicant’s tender was rejected by the
defendant because of the absence of details concerning the
educational and professional qualifications in the curriculum
vitae of at least one of the experts, in a team of 27 persons.

Action brought on 21 November 2002 by European
Dynamics against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-345/02)

(2003/C 19/74)

(Language of the case: English)

its application,

In support of
the applicant submits that
the decision to reject its tender breaches the principle of
the
proportionality. The tender was rejected because of
absence of details in one curriculum vitae, whereas the tender
requirements referred in broad and general terms to the
experience of the team, without any further specification.

The applicant furthermore alleges that the contested decision
is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. According to the
applicant, the defendant failed to exercise its power to seek
clarification on this matter and therefore breached its duty of
care and the principle of good administration.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 November 2002 by European
Dynamics (Athens), represented by W. Knapp, Rechtsanwalt,
and D. Spanou, Advocate.

The applicant also claims that by not seeking clarification and
thereby eliminating the applicant’s tender, the defendant did
not respect the equal treatment of tenderers. According to
the applicant, an evaluation committee does not enjoy an
to seek clarification
unfettered discretion to seek or not
concerning an individual tender regardless of objective con-
siderations and free from judicial supervision.

C 19/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.1.2003

The applicant finally submits that the defendant committed
serious procedural irregularities. More particularly, the defend-
ant did not respect the principle of good administration, the
right of parties to be heard and the duty to state reasons for its
decisions.

by Admira, by means of an exchange of shares. According to
the notification, following the successful completion of the
abovementioned operation, the resulting undertaking would
come under the joint control of Prisa and Groupe Canal+.

Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A., Región de Murcia de Cable, S.A., Valencia de Cable,
S.A., Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A., y Mediter-
ránea Norte Sistemas de Cable, S.A. against Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-346/02)

(2003/C 19/75)

In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:

— lack of competence of the Commission, in that it is not
empowered to refer a case to the authorities of a
Member State when the markets concerned affect intra-
Community trade and more than one Member State;

— infringement of Article 9 of the abovementioned regu-
lation on concentrations in that the contested decision
makes a ‘blank’ reference to the national authorities;

— failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons,
specifically as regards the exceptional nature of the
reference in cases in which the markets in question affect
a substantial part of the common market.

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A. (having its registered office in Aravaca, Madrid), Región
de Murcia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Murcia,
Spain), Valencia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in
Madrid), Mediterránea sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its
registered office in Alicante, Spain) y Mediterránea Norte
Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Castellón,
Spain), represented by Luis Felipe Castresana Sánchez and
Gonzalo Samaniego Bordiu, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002
referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite
Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the
Kingdom of Spain pursuant
to Article 9 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;

— order the parties to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested by the present application concerns the
notification, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
concentrations between undertakings (1), of a planned concen-
tration by which Sogecable SA, controlled by Promotora de
Informaciones S.A (Prisa) and Groupe Canal +S.A., the latter
belonging to the Vivendi Universal group, signs an agreement
with the Admira Media S.A. group, belonging to the Telefónica
S.A group, with the aim of merging Sogecable and DTS
Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A. (Vía Digital), controlled

Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
S.A.Unipersonal, Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Teleco-
municaciones de Castilla y León, S.A., Euskaltel, S.A.,
Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Ovie-
do, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Uniper-
sonal, R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., and
Tenaria S.A. against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-347/02)

(2003/C 19/76)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
S.A.Unipersonal (having its registered office in Madrid), Retecal
Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León,
S.A. (having its registered office in Boecilli, Valladolid, Spain),
Euskaltel, S.A.(having its registered office in Zamudio-Bizkaia),
Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal (registered in Avilés),
Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. Unipersonal (having its registered
office in Oviedo), Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Unipersonal (having
its registered office in Gijón), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones
Galicia, S.A.(having its registered office in A Coruña, Spain)
and Tenaria S.A.(having its registered office in Cordovilla,
Navarra, Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras,
Natalia Lacalle Mangas and José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyers.