Case T-160/03: Action brought on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Management Consultants, Patrick Mc Mullin and Seamus O'Grady against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU programme, European Commission, action for failure to act, invitation to tender

C 200/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.8.2003

Action brought on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Management
Consultants, Patrick Mc Mullin and Seamus O'Grady
against the Commission of the European Communities

tance tenders, the applicants claim that the Commission incor-
rectly awarded the contract to this consortium after the second
evaluation took place.

(Case T-160/03)

(2003/C 200/43)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicants also claim that the Commission allowed the
second evaluation committee to consider previous experience
in TACIS projects in breach of paragraph 3 of Annex III of
regulation 1279/1996 and discredited the previous successful
work of the applicants.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Manage-
Ireland, Patrick Mc Mullin, Bray,
ment Consultants, Bray,
Ireland and Seamus O'Grady, Bray,
represented by
Mr B. O'Conner, Solicitor and Mr I. Carreño, lawyer.

Ireland,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— require the Commission to pay the Applicants damages in
respect of the loss suffered by reason of the Commission's
failure to properly manage the tender procedure of TACIS
project FDRUS 9902, all sums to be increased with
the
compensatory interest,
damage, from the day on which the damage materialised;

to be calculated as part of

— order default interest payable at the appropriate rate on

the Applicant's claim for damages;

— order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants were among the ten short-listed companies
invited to submit a tender
the TACIS project FDRUS
for
9902. Due to a conflict of interest between another compe-
the evaluation committee, a first
titor and a member of
evaluation in the latter's
favour was cancelled. A second
evaluation followed, which resulted in the contract to imple-
ment the TACIS project being signed with this competitor.

The applicants claim that
the Commission acted unlawfully
during the tender procedure FDRUS 9902. They submit they
have been unfairly denied the implementation of this contract
and damage
and have
loss of
including the loss sustained in the tender procedure,
profit, lost of profile and harm to their reputation.

suffered substantial

financial

loss

The applicants submit the Commission should, after cancelling
the first
tender evaluation, have excluded the other consor-
tium's tender from the second evaluation or have sanctioned it.

to the uncompliance of

consortium with the
Due
Commission's rules and regulations governing technical assis-

this

Action brought on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-177/03)

(2003/C 200/44)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm,
residing in Brussels, Belgium, represented by C. Illig, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to appoint the applicant to adminis-
trative grade A4 in the promotion scale with retroactive
effect from 1.1.2002;

— find,

that

in the alternative,

the failure to grant seven
additional points when determining the seniority of the
applicant was unlawful and that this error had an effect
on the selection resulting from a comparative assessment
of qualifications, as a result of which the applicant
is,
with regard to service-, salary- and benefit rights, less well
off
than if he had been upgraded to the A4 as of
1.1.2002;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the allegedly erroneous application of
the Commission's promotion guidelines and on breach of the
principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and adminis-
trative legitimacy.