Case T-70/05: Action brought on 14 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the European Maritime Safety Agency
Date: 2005-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU office or agency, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, invitation to tender, maritime safety, services contract, software

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/35

Action brought on 14 February 2005 by European
the European Maritime Safety
Dynamics S.A. against
Agency

prior experience, that were neither specified nor included in
the call for tenders.

(Case T-70/05)

(2005/C 106/71)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant also claims that the defendant committed a mani-
fest error of appreciation in considering that the successful
bidder's offer was superior to that of the applicant. In this
respect, the applicant contends that no predetermined objective
methodology was used to evaluate its offer,
that on the
contrary the criteria used left room for subjective evaluation
and that, finally, there were no clear and objective metrics.

An action against the European Maritime Safety Agency was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 14 February 2005 by European Dynamics
S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Koro-
giannakis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of EMSA, to evaluate the applicant's bid
as not successful and award the contract to the successful
contractor;

— annul all subsequent decisions of EMSA related to the
Tenders under examination in the current application;

— order EMSA to pay the applicant's legal costs and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with the applica-
tion, even if the application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company filed bids in response to EMSA's calls
for tenders EMSA C-1/0104-2004 (1) and EMSA C.2/06/04 (2)
for the SafeSeaNet Validation and further development and for
the marine casualty database, network and management
system. By the contested decisions the applicant's bids were
rejected and the contracts awarded to another bidder.

that

In support of its application to annul the contested decisions
the applicant claims first of all
the defendant agency
violated the principles of good faith and good administration
by acting with significant delay and failing to offer adequate
answers to the tenderers' requests before the submission of the
bids. The defendant refused to answer the applicant's questions,
on the grounds that they had not been submitted in time, even
though it had accepted indirectly that technical problems under
its own control prevented the questions from being received.
The applicant considers that had the defendant answered its
questions timely and with diligence, it would have been able to
submit a more competitive offer.

finally submits that

The applicant
failed to
provide pertinent information and state adequate reasons for its
acts by not replying to the applicant's legitimate and timely
questions.

the defendant

(1) OJ 2004/S 126-106254.
(2) OJ 2004/S 128-108027.
(3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities, OJ L 248, 16/09/2002 p. 1.

(4) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coor-
dination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ
L 209, 24/07/1992 p. 1.

Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Jacques Wunen-
burger against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-71/05)

(2005/C 106/72)

(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 14 February 2005 by Jacques
Wunenburger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Eric
Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant further contends that the defendant violated the
Financial Regulation (3) as well as Article 17(1) of Directive
92/50 (4) by using evaluation criteria, especially the tenderers'

1. annul the draft staff report for the period from 1 July 1997
to 30 June 1999, transmitted to the applicant on 22 March
2002;