Case T-100/05: Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Compagnie d'entreprises C.F.E. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), decision-making, land and buildings, ownership, protected area

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/41

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Compagnie
d'entreprises C.F.E. against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

— annul the decision of the European Parliament of 29 April
2004 appointing another person as deputy head of the
French translation division;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case T-100/05)

(2005/C 106/82)

(Language of the Case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant takes exception to the appointing authority's
refusal to uphold his application for the post of deputy head of
the French translation division. The candidate chosen was
appointed following the publication of internal competition
notice LA/113 (vacancy notice No 9192).

In support of his claims, he alleges infringement of Article 233
of the EC treaty,
infringement of Article 29(1) of the Staff
Regulations, breach of the principle of the right to career devel-
opment and failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons.

Specifically, he contends that:

An action was brought on 21 February 2005 against
the
Commission of the European Communities by the Compagnie
d'entreprises C.F.E., whose registered office is in Brussels, repre-
sented by Bernard Louveaux and Joël van Ypersele, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul Commission Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting,
pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of
Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical
region (2004/813/EC) published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities of 29 December 2004, in its entirety
or at least to the extent to which it classified as a site of
Community importance the applicant's property situate at
Avenue de la Foresterie, Watermael-Boitsfort (Belgium) and
registered in the land register under section F No 66/Y/2
and 66/S/2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— the contested appointment was made without any examina-

tion of the applicant's application;

Pleas and main arguments

— the order of priority for the various procedures for filling
posts, as provided for in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations,
was not observed;

— the absence of a decision regarding the applicant's applica-
tion under the procedure for promotion/transfer is particu-
larly serious since the procedure for filling the post in ques-
tion had already been the subject of an annulling judgment
in Case T-261/99 Dehon v Parliament. Compliance with that
judgment involved restoring the situation to the position as
it stood before the circumstances criticised by the Court
came into being.

The applicant in the present case is the owner of a major share
of building land situate in the region of Brussels-Capital. That
land has been classified by the contested decision as a site of
Community importance.

In support of its claims the applicant pleads:

— Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Annex III to Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, inasmuch as
the Commission took the decision at issue even though no
draft list of sites of Community importance had been duly
proposed by Belgium; the author of the proposal in that
regard, the Brussels Institute for the management of the
environment is manifestly not competent to formulate such
proposal. Consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by
lack of competence.

C 106/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2005

— Infringement of Articles 4(2) and (3), 20 and 21 of Direc-
tive 92/43 aforesaid, Articles 5(2) and 7(1) of Council Deci-
sion 999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the proce-
dures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on
the Commission, Article 8 of the rules of procedure of the
‘habitats’ committee, Article 9 of
the standard rules of
procedure adopted in Decision 2001/C 38/03 under Article
7(1) aforesaid, as well as the general principles of sound
administration and audi alteram partem. In that regard the
applicant asserts that the opinion of the habitats committee
was not sought in accordance with the ordinary procedure
applicable in that regard but under the procedure for a
written procedure, even though there was no apparent need
for recourse to that procedure, recourse thereto did not
form the subject-matter of a reasoned opinion and the habi-
tats committee was not enabled to express its views on all
the technical aspects of the file.

— The Commission adopted its decision on the basis of a
proposal for a list of sites founded on factual information
which was inaccurate and/or irrelevant
the
in light of
criteria laid down in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.

Action brought on 28 February 2005 by CEGELEC SA
against European Parliament

(Case T-104/05)

(2005/C 106/83)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28
February 2005 by CEGELEC SA, whose registered office is in
Brussels,
represented by André Delvaux and Véronique
Bertrand, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— declare the action for annulment admissible;

— annul the decision of 15 December 2004, by which the
European Parliament
submitted by
CEGELEC SA and awarded to GROUP 4 Technology SA the

rejected the tender

three components making up the contract for the supply
and commissioning of video surveillance systems for the
three main workplaces of the European Parliament, which
was the subject of a contract notice published in Official
Journal of the European Union S 61 of 26 March 2004, and
for which the reasons were notified to CEGELEC SA by
letter of 16 December 2004;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Please in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of the Parliament's decision to
reject the applicant's tender in the call-for-tenders procedure
concerning the provision of video surveillance systems at the
European Parliament's three main workplaces and to award the
contract to another tenderer.

In support of its application, the applicant describes a number
of alleged infringements of the tendering conditions and of
Regulations Nos 1605/2002 (1) and 2432/2002 (2) and of
Directives 92/50 (3), 93/36 (4) and 2004/18 (5), which consist
more particularly of:

— inadequate statement of the reasons for the contested deci-

sion notified to the applicant;

— failure to apply the rules for awards of contract and the
weighting system provided for in the tendering specifica-
tions;

— the fact that, in the light of its size, the tender accepted was
not in conformity with the obligation to submit a tender in
writing in one of the official languages of the Union;

— the fact that the Parliament, in breach of the principle of
equal treatment for tenderers, awarded the contract on the
basis of cameras which had not been demonstrated at the
‘photos-tests’ session;

— the alleged belatedness of the tender that was accepted.

(1) OJ L 248, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 357, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 209, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 199, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 134, p. 114.