Case T-251/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European Social Fund, action for annulment (EU), educational institution

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/51

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estab-
elecimento de Ensino Particular, SA against the Commis-
sion of the European Communities

— annul the decision of the OPOCE, to evaluate the applicant's
to the

bid as not successful and award the contract
successful contractor;

— order the OPOCE to pay the applicant's legal and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Appli-
cation, even if the current Application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company filed a bid in response to the OPOCE's
call for tenders No. 6019-1 for the AProvision of Services in
Relation to the Collection, Production and Dissemination of
in particular the Supplement to the
Electronic Publications,
Official
the European Union (OJS)@. By the
contested decision the applicant's bid was rejected and the
contract awarded to another bidder.

Journal of

In support of its application the applicant contends that the
contested decision was taken in violation of the principle of
non-discrimination since the OPOCE failed to take action to
investigate and remedy a problem brought to its attention by
the applicant, namely that only a very limited number of
companies producing CD-ROMs and located inside an approxi-
mate two-hours range from Luxembourg could supply the
requested quantity within the framework imposed by the call
for tenders, and that in this way tenderers were obliged to
produce bids in collaboration with those companies and there-
fore be linked with them on price and quality issues. According
to the applicant several alternatives existed but OPOCE failed
to take any action and this led to a situation where only one
bid could be accepted as fulfilling the technical evaluation
criteria.

The applicant further invokes two alleged evident errors of
assessment of the Evaluation Report, namely mistakenly consid-
ering that the price offered by the applicant was some EUR
800 000 higher than it actually was and noting, also erro-
neously, that the production did not seem realizable and that
there was no information in the tender with regard to the CD-
ROM.

(Case T-251/05)

(2005/C 217/107)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso —
Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA, established in Lisbon,
represented by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul decision C(2005)1236 of

the Commission of

the
European Communities of 14 April 2005 ‘reducing the
amount of the assistance granted by the European Social
Fund to Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particu-
lar, Lda in accordance with the Commission's Decision
C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989’;

2. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of essential procedural requirements in that the
Commission's decision procedure does not satisfy the formal
requirements and in that insufficient justification is provided
for the contested decision;

legitimate

Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the
protection of
the
contested decision is, to the applicant's detriment, at variance
with the earlier act attesting to the factual and accounting accu-
racy of the documents produced by the applicant with its
request for payment of the balance certified by it;

inasmuch as

expectations,

Manifest error in the assessment of the documentary evidence
of expenditure produced by Mediocurso; and

Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is
vitiated by a failure to provide pertinent information and to
state reasons.

Infringement of the principle of proportionality, with regard to
the grounds of fact and law put forward in support of the
reduction of assistance which is the subject-matter of
the
contested decision.