Action brought on 9 April 2004 by Lapin liitto, Enontekiön kunta, Inarin kunta, Utsjoen kunta and Unto Autto against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-141/04)
Date: 2004-05-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Alpine Region, European Commission, Finland, action for annulment (EU), farmer, protected area

C 146/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2004

— order the European Community to pay compensation for
the loss of income suffered by the applicant, amounting to
euro 60 000, as a result of the fact that, owing to the rejec-
tion,
it was unable to exploit and extend its expertise,
together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full
has been made;

— order the European Community to pay compensation for
the consequential losses suffered by the applicant as a result
of the lost chance to acquire a renewal contract. The conse-
quential
losses resulting from the reduced chance of a
renewal contract are estimated at 10 % of the net income
from the renewal contract, thus at euro 25 500;

— in the alternative, order the European Community to pay
compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a
result of the loss of the chance of the award of a contract
in the amount of euro 26 400, together with interest at the
legal rate until payment in full has been made;

According to the applicant,
the Commission also infringed
Article 12(1) of Directive 92/50/EEC by failing to inform the
applicant of the reasons for the rejection within a period of 15
days after receipt of the written request in that regard.

The applicant also submits that if the Commission had acted in
accordance with the rules of proper administration it would
have been admitted to the award phase. In that case, according
to the applicant, it would also have received a contract.

The applicant also claims that the Commission was obliged,
under Articles 16 and 17(2) of Directive 92/50/EEC, no later
than 48 days after the award of the contract, to send a notice
concerning the outcome of the tender procedure to the Publica-
tions Office of the European Communities.

Finally, the applicant states that the Commission has attempted
to mislead it.

— order the European Community to pay compensation for
the costs which the applicant has incurred in submitting its
tender, amounting to euro 10 000, together with interest at
the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

(1) Open invitation to tender No XI.D.1 (OJ 1996 C 232, p. 35).
(2) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coor-
dination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ
1992 L 209, p. 1).

— order the European Communities to pay compensation for
the costs which the applicant has incurred in obtaining
evidence and bringing the matter before the European
Ombudsman, amounting to euro 40 000, together with
interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been
made;

— order the European Community to pay the costs of the

proceedings.

Action brought on 9 April 2004 by Lapin liitto, Enonte-
kiön kunta, Inarin kunta, Utsjoen kunta and Unto Autto
against the Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

In September 1996 the applicant submitted a tender for a
public contract from the Commission in the context of services
in relation to the Directive concerning water intended for
human consumption (1). The applicant was not, however,
selected.

According to the applicant, the Commission acted contrary to
the requirements of transparency which must be observed in
invitations to tender. The applicant submits that the European
Ombudsman, after receiving a complaint from the applicant,
came to the same conclusion in that respect.

(Case T-141/04)

(2004/C 146/11)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 April 2004 by Lapin liitto
(Lapland Region), Enontekiön kunta (municipality of Enon-
tekiö),
Inari), Utsjoen kunta
(municipality of Utsjoki) and Unto Autto, reindeer herder,
represented by Kari Marttinen, lawyer, and Professor Pertti Eila-
vaara.

Inarin kunta (municipality of

The applicant also submits that the Commission acted contrary
to Article 3 of Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the coordination
of procedures for the award of public service contracts (2).
According to the applicant, the Commission infringed the prin-
ciples of proper
administration by treating the various
tenderers differently.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul and delete the data on sites concerning Finland from
the Commission's decision as unlawful as explained in the
application,

29.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/9

— annul in particular the Pallas-Ounastunturin kansallispuisto
protected site (FI1300101) as infringing the rights of the
applicant reindeer herder Unto Autto and unlawful,

nature directive in accordance with Annex III to the direc-
tive, as confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European
Communities in several judgments.

— reimburse the legal costs of the proceedings in full with

interest determined from the date of judgment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission's decision was adopted on the following prin-
cipal unlawful bases:

— The Commission exceeded its jurisdiction when it approved

the list of sites submitted by Finland.

— The Commission did not check the lawfulness of Finland's
decision in accordance with the Treaty of Rome or as
required by the nature directive, so that its own decision-
making is based on a procedure contrary to Annex III to
the nature directive.

— Finland drew up its own decision on sites contrary to Com-
munity law, since it did not apply the Community law

— Objectors were not heard as regards the formation of the
the
alpine regional sites, and the other preparation of
matter was not based in Finland on the procedure laid
down by the nature directive.

— Reindeer herder Unto Autto in particular considers that the
Commission's decision on the protection of alpine areas
does not safeguard his fundamental rights, since the deci-
sions has legal effects but his fundamental rights are not
safeguarded. Fundamental rights mean the rights under the
Finnish constitution to protection of property, freedom to
carry on an occupation, and protection of culture. The
Commission's decision also infringes the fundamental rights
recognised by the European Union and applied in consis-
tent practice.