Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Adviesbureau Ehcon B.V. against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-140/04)
Date: 2004-05-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), award of contract, damages, provision of services

29.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/7

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the entire contested decision of the Commission; or,

should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

— annul the contested decision in respect of all Austrian sites
of Community importance (Code AT in Annex I to the
contested decision); or,

should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

— (a) annul the contested decision of the Commission insofar
as it includes site AT 2102000 ‘Nockberge’ and

(b) annul the contested decision of the Commission insofar
as it includes site AT 2119000 ‘Gut Walterskirchen’; or,

should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

— annul the contested decision insofar as it includes sites
declared in Annex I to be sites of Community importance
for habitats and species which, in the standard data forms
submitted by the Member States, were awarded a degree of
representativity and a global assessment grade of B, C and
D (or, in the alternative, C and D, or, in the further alterna-
tive, C), with regard to

(a) all sites listed in the contested decision (see Annex I), or

(b) all Austrian sites (Code AT in Annex I), or

(c) merely

the

sites AT 2102000 ‘Nockberge’

and

AT 2119000 ‘Gut Walterskirchen’;

— in any event, however, order the Commission to pay the
costs to the authorised representative of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicants' action challenges Commission Decision of 22
to Council Directive
December 2003 adopting, pursuant
92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the
Alpine biogeographical region. (1) The applicants are farmers
and foresters who operate agricultural and forestry businesses,
including ancillary businesses, on their properties, which are
located in areas declared in the contested decision to be ‘sites
of Community importance’ (SCI). The applicants submit that,
by the Decision, they have been made addressees of rules of
Community law. The Decision interferes with the applicants'
right to land ownership – which is to be protected in accord-
ance with the constitutional tradition of Community law –
automatically, without
there having been any balancing of
interests, without exception and without appropriate compen-
sation (or even mere provision for compensation) and to an
extent much greater that which may be necessary on account

of any social obligation. This constitutes an infringement of the
Treaty within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 230 EC,
with the result that the contested decision must be annulled.

The applicants argue that the contested decision is also incon-
sistent with the very Directive on which it is based. (2) The
criteria necessary for determining the required financing were
not properly drawn up and the coherence of the conservation-
area network required under the Directive is not guaranteed.

Moreover, the applicants claim that the Commission failed in
the contested decision to make expressly the required state-
ments specifying the species and habitats for which the sites
now listed by it as ‘SCIs’ are actually of Community impor-
tance. Finally, the applicants submit that,
in respect of the
conservation areas affecting them, the content of the decision is
based on erroneous technical information. The sites were thus
wrongly declared SCIs in respect of particular species and habi-
tats and the contested decision must be annulled for this reason
also.

(1) OJ 2004 L 14, p. 21.
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p.
7).

Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Adviesbureau Ehcon
B.V. against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-140/04)

(2004/C 146/10)

(language of the case Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 April 2004 by Adviesbureau
Ehcon B.V., established in Reeuwijk (Netherlands) represented
by M.A. Goedkoop.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the European Community to pay compensation for
the loss of euro 158 400 which the applicant suffered as a
result of the failure to award the contract, together with
interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been
made;

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,