Case T-125/05: Action brought on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und Ingenieurtechnik GmbH Dresden against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, hydraulic works, works contract

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the appointing authority's decision of 9 December
2004 responding to the applicant's complaint of 28 May
2004 and require the appointing authority to take whatever
action is dictated by that annulment;

2. rule that any unjustified and objectively unjustifiable discri-
mination based on whether or not the place of origin and/
or place of employment belongs, in the geographical sense,
to the continent of Europe is unlawful and accordingly
declare that Article 8(4) of Annex VII to the old Staff Regu-
lations is unlawful;

3. recall, irrespective of the foregoing, that Réunion is an inte-
gral part of the Community under Article 299(2) of the EC
Treaty and is also subject,
its
Member State, to the EAEC Treaty and the Treaty on Euro-
pean Union and point out in that regard that European offi-
cials originating from that territory are entitled to equal
treatment vis-à-vis those originating from a European terri-
tory, in the geographical sense, of a Member State;

through the accession of

4. award the applicant EUR 1 as token compensation for the
non-material damage suffered and EUR 7 200 to compen-
sate for the financial damage suffered.

5. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision not
to
acknowledge his entitlement, as an official originating from a
French Overseas Department, to be covered by Article 8(1) to
(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in the version in force
before 1 May 2004.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads unlawfulness of
the legal basis of the contested decision, namely Article 8(4) of
Annex VII to the old Staff Regulations of Officials. According
to the applicant, that provision is invalidated by the absence of
a statement of reasons, is discriminatory and infringes Article
21(1) of the European Charter of fundamental rights of the
European Union.

The applicant also alleges breach of the obligation to state
reasons and breach of a number of rules and general principles
of Community law, such as the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials, as well as manifest error of assessment,
breach of the principle of equal treatment and breach of the
principle of good administration

Action brought on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und Inge-
nieurtechnik GmbH Dresden against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-125/05)

(2005/C 115/66)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und
Ingenieurtechnik GmbH Dresden, Dresden (Germany), repre-
sented by H. Robl, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 23 December 2004 refusing to award

a contract to the applicant;

— annul

the decision of 23 December 2004 awarding a

contract to All Trade S.r.l;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission of 23
December 2004 not to award the applicant Public Contract No
AIDCO/A6/FP/co/2004/D/45370, Contract No 90-127 in the
tender procedure 'Plan Improvement Project for South Ukraine
NPP,' concerning a measure to introduce an intelligent control
system for water quality in the nuclear power station in South
Ukraine. The applicant also challenges the simultaneous deci-
sion to award this contract to the competitor All Trade S.r.l.

The applicant argues that the Commission:

— erroneously assessed that

the applicant's tender did not
comply with point 2.2.6 of
the technical specification,
although all of the services offered by the applicant fully
satisfied the specification and this was confirmed by refer-
ences,

— erroneously stated that the applicant did not comply with
points 2.3.1 and 2.3.4 of the technical specification due to
insufficient explanations and information, although the
applicant's explanations were both extensive and exhaus-
tive, and

— breached the duty to provide clarification and exceeded its

discretion.

C 115/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

The applicant contends further that in assessing the price, the
Commission incorrectly, and in breach of the requirements of
paragraph 1.3 of the instructions to tenders based its decision
solely on the basic tender price and thus, in spite of their rele-
vance, the pricing of spare parts and maintenance costs were
not taken into consideration.

Finally, the applicant submits that the competitor All Trade
S.r.l. does not provide any guarantee, either by its expertise or
financial standing or by its technical experience, that it will
successfully carry out the project in question.

Convention. Estonia was a party to that Convention prior to its
accession to the European Union. Article 6(9) of the Act of
Accession of Estonia and the other new Member States to the
European Union (3) provides that as from the date of accession,
fisheries agreements concluded by the new Member States shall
be managed by the Community and that the rights and obliga-
tions resulting for the new Member States from those agree-
ments shall not be affected during the period in which the
provisions of those agreements are provisionally maintained. It
is in this context that the contested measures were issued, allo-
cating Estonia fishing opportunities, measured in metric tons of
allowable catch of certain stocks in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Action brought on 24 March 2005 by Lootus Teine
Osaühing against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-127/05)

(2005/C 115/67)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 24 March 2005 by Lootus Teine Osaühing,
established in Tartu (Estonia), represented by T. Sild and K.
Martin, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004
of 20 December 2004 amending Regulations (EC) Nos
2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as concerns fishing opportu-
nities for deep sea species for the new Member States
which acceded in 2004 (1), as regards fishing opportunities
allocated to Estonia;

— annul Part 2 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No
2270/2004 (2) of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and
2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing
vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks, as regards fishing
opportunities allocated to Estonia;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an Estonian fishing company which practises
deep sea fishing in the area of the North East Atlantic Fisheries

According to the applicant these allocations constitute only a
fraction of what Estonia legally harvested before accession. On
this basis the applicant contends that the contested measures
violated Article 6(9) of the Act of Accession as well as the prin-
ciple of proportionality, and should therefore be annulled.

(1) OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 4.
(3) OJ L 236, 23.09.2003.

Action brought on 23 February 2005 by Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-129/05)

(2005/C 115/68)

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: Spanish)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23
February 2005 by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., represented by Fernand
de Visscher, Emmanuel Cornu, Eric de Gryse, Donatienne
Moreau,
Jorge Grau Mora, Alejandro Angulo Labora, Maite
Ferrándiz Avendaño, María Baylos Morales and Antonio Velás-
quez Ibáñez, lawyers.