Case T-250/05: Action brought on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, invitation to tender, services contract

C 217/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2005

Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster
against the Commission of the European Communities

to her status as an official and the non-material detriment
resulting from that uncertainty;

(Case T-249/05)

7. order the Commission to pay the costs.

(2005/C 217/105)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: Dutch)

The applicant submitted an application for parental leave for
the period from 8 November 2004 until 7 May 2005.
In
response, the Commission granted the applicant parental leave
from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster,
residing in Oetrange (Luxembourg), represented by W. H. A. M.
van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant states that no formal refusal was received in
response to her request for parental leave for the period from 8
November 2004 until 7 May 2005 and she concludes that her
request was implicitly rejected. She also states that, as she did
not challenge that rejection and did not submit any other appli-
cation, she was in active service from 1 November 2004 until
30 April 2005 inclusive and is thus entitled to all benefits asso-
ciated therewith.

1. annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 6 April 2005;

2. annul the decision on the award of parental

leave of 1
November 2004 to 30 April 2005 inclusive and/or the
salary slip for November 2004, and/or the Commission's
decision of 30 November 2004 not to take account of the
request for deferment or cancellation of the parental leave;

3. find that from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 inclu-
sive Mrs Duyster has all substantive rights connected with
inter alia,
the active service of an official and therefore,
payment according to her grade and step must be made to
her with retroactive effect;

In support of her application the applicant also submits that
the decision awarding parental leave from 1 November 2004
until 30 April 2005 was adopted contrary to the principle of
equality, the principle of legal certainty, Article 42a of the Staff
Regulations and Articles 25, 26, 35, 36 and 62 of the Staff
Regulations.

4. find that this payment must be made with interest for late

payment;

Action brought on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics
S.A. against the Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities

5. find that parental leave with regard to her son may still be
requested (even if, after the date when the judgment of the
Court becomes effective, he is older than 12 years old or
almost older than 12 years old) since the failure to approve
the request submitted is the Commission's fault; alterna-
tively, that, since the inability to take up parental leave in
regard to her son is the fault of the Commission compensa-
tion must be paid for this corresponding to the loss of bene-
fits for parental
insurance, seniority, the accrual of
pension; appraisal reports and promotion opportunities,
which can be estimated at a total of EUR 27 000; or, in the
further alternative, that damages of EUR 800 per month
over the period not taken up in respect of parental leave for
her son shall be paid for loss of parental benefit, EUR 100
for loss of insurance, EUR 1 200 for loss of pension rights;

leave,

6. find that damages of EUR 2 500 must be paid to her as
compensation for the uncertainty caused to Mrs Duyster as

(Case T-250/05)

(2005/C 217/106)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 2005 by
European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), repre-
sented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.

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.