Case T-148/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 by TQ3 Travel Solutions against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, invitation to tender, provision of services, travel, travel agency

C 179/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.7.2004

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 16 April 2004 by Elisabetta Righini
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by TQ3 Travel Solutions
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-145/04)

(2004/C 179/20)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-148/04)

(2004/C 179/21)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 April 2004 by Elisabetta
Righini, living in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission's decisions classifying the applicant
at Grade A7-3 on her entry into service, whether as a
member of the temporary staff or as a probationary official,
such decisions having been notified to her on 27 May 2003
and 30 June 2003;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to Article
the Court of First

the Rules of Procedure of

87(2) of
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges her classification in Grade A7, Step 3,
on her appointment as a probationary official on 21 May
2003.

In support of her claims, she alleges:

— infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations;

— infringement of the Commission's decision of 1 September
1983, as amended on 7 February 1996, specifying the
criteria to be applied when classifying members of the
temporary staff and officials in their grade and step upon
recruitment;

— infringement of certain general principles of law, such as
the principle of equal treatment, the protection of legitimate
expectations and the duty to have due regard to the welfare
of officials, and also of
requiring the
appointing authority to make a decision only on the basis
of relevant grounds, not vitiated by an obvious error of
assessment.

the principles

The applicant argues that both her exceptional qualifications
and the profile of the post in question, which required that a
particularly qualified person be appointed, justified her classifi-
cation in Grade A6.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 April 2004 by TQ3 Travel Solu-
tions, established in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by Rusen
Ergec and Kim Möric, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission's decision of 24 February 2004,
informing the applicant of the rejection of its tender for Lot
1 (Brussels) of Contract No ADMIN/D1/PR/2003/131;

— Annul

the Commission's decision awarding Lot 1 to
Carlson Wagonlit Travel, notified to the applicant by a
letter from the Commission of 16 March 2004;

— Hold that the unlawful action by the Commission consti-
tutes a fault capable of rendering it liable to the appliant;

— Send the applicant back to the Commission for the loss

suffered to be assessed;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following a restricted invitation to tender for ‘travel agency
services’ (1)
issued on 20 October 2003 and the tendering
procedure, the Commission took the decision not to award the
contract to the applicant and to award it to Carlson Wagonlit
Travel.

The applicant makes two identical pleas in law challenging
those decisions, alleging obvious error by the Commission in
assessing the tenders.

In its first plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made
an obvious error of assessment by holding that the tender of
Carlson Wagonlit Travel was not abnormally low; it also claims
that the Commission acted unlawfully by failing to comply
with the obligation under Article 146(4) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (2), requiring
it to ask for appropriate clarifications as to the composition of
the tender.

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/11

The second plea alleges obvious error by the Commission in
assessing the quality of
the tenders, giving the tender by
Carlson Wagonlit Travel the highest mark for the quality of the
services offered, whereas that tender was unable to allow suffi-
cient quality for the services concerned to be guaranteed.

antee. The applicant claims that it should not be treated as a
party in default in the light of its decision to appeal against the
decision imposing the fine and the nature and content of the
negotiations undertaken in good faith.

(1) Contract No ADMIN/D1/PR/2003/131 (OJ S 143).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23
December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Finan-
cial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by GRAFTECH INTER-
NATIONAL LTD. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-152/04)

(2004/C 179/22)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 April 2004 by GRAFTECH
INTERNATIONAL LTD., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, repre-
sented by K.P.E. Lasok QC and Brian Hartnett Barristers with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alternatively, amend the contested decision, in exercise of
the Court's unlimited jurisdiction, so as to cause interest at
8.04 % to run only as from 30 September 2003, or as to
reduce the rate of interest;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant furthermore claims that the Commission acted
contrary to Article 86(5) of Regulation 2342/2002 (2).

The applicant also claims that the conduct of the Commission
allowed the applicant to legitimately expect that an interest rate
of 6.04 % would be imposed.

The applicant invokes a violation of the principle of good
administration because the Commission failed to agree on an
appropriate form of a financial guarantee. Also, the applicant
claims that the Commission failed to give clear notice that the
higher interest rate would be levied during the period of nego-
tiation.

the applicant claims that

Finally,
the contested decision is
disproportionate. According to the applicant, the justification
for the default rate of interest is to deter dilatory behaviour and
not to penalise bona fide negotiations that the Commission has
willingly embarked upon and continued at its own pace.

(1) 2002/271/EC: Commission Decision of 18 July 2001 relating to a
proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
EEA Agreement - Case COMP/E-1/36.490 - Graphite electrodes (OJ
2002 L 100, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23
December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Finan-
cial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities (OJ L 357, p. 1).

Action brought on 23 April 2004 by ALENIA MARCONI
the European
SYSTEMS SpA against Commission of

Communities

(Case T-155/04)

(2004/C 179/23)

(Language of the case: Italian)

The subject matter of this action is a decision of the Commis-
sion, contained in a letter of 17 February 2004, by which the
Commission required the applicant to pay interest on a fine
imposed by a Commission Decision of 18 July 2001 (1) at the
rate of 8.04 % instead of 6.04 %.

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 April 2004 against Commission
of
European Communities by ALENIA MARCONI
SYSTEMS SpA, represented by Francesco Sciaudone, Lawyer.

the

In support of its application, the applicant claims that the
Commission has acted unlawfully in seeking to impose the
higher of the two possible interest rates. According to the
applicant, the delay in the payment of the fine or the provision
of a satisfactory financial guarantee for the fine was due to the
recognition by the Commission that the applicant could not
pay the fine and the efforts by both parties to reach an agree-
ment on what would constitute a satisfactory financial guar-

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— Order the Commission to produce to the Court of First
the records available to it concerning the

Instance all
complaint lodged by the applicant;

— Annul and/or amend the contested decision;