Case T-431/04: Action brought on 19 October 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-12-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy, action for annulment (EU), designation of origin, labelling, product designation, viticulture, wine

C 314/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.12.2004

Action brought on 20 October 2004 by Tramarin s.n.c. di
Tramarin Andrea e Sergio against the Commission of the
European Communities

1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2);

(Case T-426/04)

(2004/C 314/60)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 October 2004 by Tramarin
s.n.c. di Tramarin Andrea e Sergio, represented by Michele
Arcangelo Calabrese, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the part of Commission letter D/53186, D/(00)PI D/
672, of 29 May 2000, described in the previous action;

— the procedural guarantees in favour of persons interested in

a State aid.

In particular, the applicant submits that the request to with-
draw a proposal or the part of a proposal for a State aid
scheme,
if upheld by the Member State, has the same legal
effect as a negative decision under Article 7(5) of Regulation
(EC) No 659/99, with the significant difference that, whilst a
negative decision is adopted at the end of a procedure full of
procedural guarantees for the parties concerned, the request to
withdraw, followed by the acquiescence by the Member State,
allows the Commission to adopt decisions not to raise objec-
tions which in fact have the content of negative decisions,
without however having the substantive form of negative deci-
sions. Further,
it allows the Commission to deal with those
decisions pursuant to the publication rules laid down for deci-
sions not to raise objections, thereby treating publication on its
web site as sufficient,
instead of applying the rules which
would apply to a decision to open a formal inquiry: publication
in full in the Official Journal of the European Communities, a
request to submit observations and the duty to take account of
those observations before adopting a reasoned negative deci-
sion.

— annul the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000,
granting authorisation without raising objections to State
aid scheme No 715/99 — Italy — Measures in support of
business in depressed areas of the country;

As for the decision of 12 July 2000, it is alleged to be invalid
for the same reasons as the letter of 29 May 2000, since it is
the decision by which, if that letter is annulled, the infringe-
ments of the abovementioned guarantees take effect.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004, p. 83.
(2) OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1.

The applicant in the present case, in the same way as in Case
T-98/04 S.I.M.S.A. and Others v Commission (1), challenges, in
addition to the decision authorising State aid scheme No
N 715/99, also challenged in that case, the decision contained
in that part of the letter from the defendant of 29 May 2000,
in reply to a proposal put forward by the Italian authorities to
the Commission at a meeting in Brussels on 16 May 2000 that
a transitional rule intended to prevent a lack of continuity
between the preceding scheme and the new scheme be included
in the State aid scheme constituted by Italian Law No 488/92
and by its implementing provisions, because of the expectation
of initiatives taken by the category of undertakings which had
not yet submitted the application in the first notice to be insti-
tuted under the new scheme, but which had already embarked
upon an investment project, by which it requested those Italian
authorities to withdraw that proposal.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges an infringement
of:

Action brought on 19 October 2004 by the Italian
the European
Republic

the Commission of

against

Communities

(Case T-431/04)

(2004/C 314/61)

(Language of the case: Italian)

— essential procedural requirements,

in failing to open the

formal inquiry procedure laid down by Article 88(2) EC;

— Article 4(4) and 7(5) and the second and third paragraphs
of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 October 2004 by the Italian
Republic,
represented by Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello
Stato.

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/27

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the explanatory note to point 103 of Annex I to
Commission Regulation No 1429/2004, relating to the fact
that the name ‘Tocai friulano’ may be used only until 31
March 2007.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put
forward in Case T-417/04 Regione Autonoma del Friuli
Venezia Giulia v Commission (1).

(1) Not yet published in the OJ.

Action brought on 15 November 2004 by Capgemini
Nederland B.V. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-447/04)

(2004/C 314/62)

(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 15 November 2004 by Capgemini
Nederland B.V.,Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by M.
Meulenbelt and H. Speyart, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission's decision, notified to the applicant
by letter dated 13 September 2004, not to retain the appli-
cant's offer in the context of the call for tender JAI-C3-
2003-01;

On 25 June 2003 the Commission published a Contract Notice
for the development and installation of a large scale informa-
tion system in the field of justice and home affairs, referred to
as SIS II and VIS. The applicant submitted a bid. By letter dated
13 September 2004 the Commission notified the applicant of
its decision not to retain its offer and to award the contract to
another tenderer. In the same letter it informed the applicant
that it would not be signing the contract with the successful
tenderer before the expiry of a period of two weeks from the
date of the letter. An exchange of correspondence between the
applicant and the Commission followed, in the course of which
the Commission confirmed its intention to award the contract
to another tenderer. On 26 October 2004 the Commission
published a press release stating that it had signed a contract
with the successful tenderer.

By its application the applicant requests the annulment of both
the Commission's decision to reject its offer as well as the deci-
sion to sign a contract with the successful tenderer. In support
of the request to annul the decision rejecting the applicant's
offer, the applicant invokes a number of alleged violations of
Regulation 1605/2002 (1)
(the Financial Regulation) and of
Regulation 2342/2002 (2)
laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of the Financial Regulation. In this context the
applicant submits that the method of price evaluation chosen
by the Commission is unusual in that it is not based on a fixed
price for the project but rather on price ratios between the
price offered by each particular tenderer and the lowest price
offered, calculated at the level of each of the 15 individual
items included in the project, which all carry equal weight even
though they are of greatly diverging sizes. Use of this method,
according to the applicant, did not result in a fair and equitable
outcome. The applicant further alleges that the Commission
to abnormally low prices in the successful
failed to react
tenderer's offer,
failed to take into account a corrigendum
submitted by the applicant and failed to reject the successful
tenderer's offer in spite of non-compliance with technical
criteria. The applicant also claims that the commission violated
the ‘best value for money’ principle since the total contract
value for the successful tenderer is higher than that for the
applicant.

to annul

its request

In support of
the decision to sign a
contract with the successful tenderer the applicant submits that
by concluding that contract the Commission willingly deprived
the applicant of an effective remedy. The applicant also
invokes, in this context, a violation of Article 230 EC arguing
that, by informing the applicant that it would only wait for
two weeks before signing the contract with the successful
tenderer, the Commission effectively shortened the two-month
time limit for the introduction of an application set out in that
article. Finally,
the Commission
the applicant argues that
violated Article 103 of Regulation 1605/2002 by failing to
suspend the procedure leading to the decision to sign the
contract even though the applicant, by its letters, had drawn its
attention to possible irregularities in the award procedure.

— Annul the Commission's decision to sign a contract with

another tenderer;

(1) OJ 2002, L 248 p. 1.
(2) OJ 2002, L 357 p. 1.

— Order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of

the applicant.