Case T-310/05: Action brought on 12 August 2005 — ASTEC Global Consultancy/Commission
Date: 2005-10-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administration of the Institutions, award of contract, consortium

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/21

Form of order sought

Action brought on 12 August 2005 — ASTEC Global
Consultancy/Commission

— The annulment of the Commission Decision of 2 May 2005
received by the Applicants on 31 May 2005 refusing to
open an in-depth investigation of the costs and revenues of
AIA SA related to the provision of passenger security
facilities and car parking
services, passenger
services in order to establish whether the charges levied by
the Athens International Airport SA constitute an abuse of
a dominant position;

terminal

— an order that the costs of, and occasioned by these proceed-

Parties

ings be borne by the Respondent.

(Case T-310/05)

(2005/C 271/42)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are individual users of the Athens International
Airport of Spata. They contest the Commission's final Decision
pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation 773/2004 (1) not to
open an in-depth investigation of the allegedly excessive airport
charges levied by Athens International Airport with regard to
passenger security, passenger terminal facilities and car parking
services.

The applicants invoke an error of law and a manifest error in
the appreciation of facts in so far as the Commission consid-
ered that the passenger security controls do not constitute an
economic activity within the meaning of Article 82 EC and
that
the car parking services do not constitute a relevant
market.

The applicants further allege that the Commission did not carry
out a proper comparison of Athens International Airport of
Spata's costs and revenues related to the provision of security
services, passenger terminal facilities and car parking services
as it did not verify the accuracy and substance of the informa-
tion supplied by Athens International Airport of Spata.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that the Commission made
an error of law by not identifying (i) the use of different rates
for passenger terminal
facility charges on international and
domestic flights and (ii) the levying of a terminal facility charge
and a security charge on scheduled flights which are not levied
on charter flights.

Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of Article 253 EC in
that the Commission did not indicate the costs and revenues of
Athens International Airport of Spata on which it based its
conclusion that Athens International Airport of Spata does not
engage in excessive pricing.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating
to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Arti-
cles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 123 of 27 April 2004, p. 18.

Applicant(s): ASTEC Global Consultancy Limited (Dublin,
Ireland) [represented by: B. O'Connor, solicitor and I. Carreño,
lawyer]

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

the European Commission's Decision of 25 July
2005 (Reference no. AIDCO/F3/ACH D (2005) 19574),
rejecting the applicant's application to participate in Lot 3
of
the Commission procurement procedure EuropeAid//
119860/C/SV multi;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

of

the Commission

The applicant, acting as consortium leader, applied on 15 April
2005 for Lot 3 of the Framework contract in the context of a
re-launch
procedure
EuropeAid//119860/C/SV/multi. One of the other members of
the applicant's consortium was Austroconsult Ges.m.b.H. That
company was also a partner in another consortium applying
for the same lot. On 31 May 2005 Austroconsult formally
withdrew from that other consortium.

procurement

By the contested Decision the Commission refused to short-list
the applicant's application on the grounds that
it did not
comply with the Procurement Notice since Austroconsult was
also present in another application.

In support of its request to annul the contested Decision the
applicant contends that
the Commission infringed essential
procedural requirements in procurement procedures, since any
conflict of interest due to Austroconsult's participation in two
from the
consortiums had been resolved by its withdrawal
other consortium. In the same context, the applicant alleges in
the alternative that Austroconsult could not have been consid-
ered a valid member of the other consortium, since its formal
letter in the application package was not dated.

The applicant further alleges that the Commission infringed the
principles of equal treatment, sound administration and due
diligence, as it failed to investigate Austroconsult's withdrawal
from the other consortium, if it had doubts about it, and failed
to inform the applicant of its concerns. The applicant considers
that its exclusion without any further clarification was dispro-
portionate and in violation of good administration.

C 271/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.10.2005

Finally, the applicant alleges that by establishing a short-list of
only six candidates and continuing the tender procedure, the
Commission has infringed the rules set down in the tender
It also
notice requiring a minimum of eight candidates.
considers that it has been discriminated against, in that in the
original launch and in the first re-launch of the tender proce-
dure, in both of which the applicant had been successful, the
rule requiring a short list of at least eight candidates had been
observed, contrary to what has been the case at the second re-
launch, from which the applicant was excluded.

ment of 16 May 2002, supplemented by the judgment of 30
September 2002, delivered in the case cited above.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges an infringement
of Articles 62 and 67 of the Staff Regulations, together with
Article 17 of Annexes VII and XIII thereof, also in the version
resulting from the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations
of 1 May 2004. He also alleges that general principles of law
have been disregarded, such as the principles of sound adminis-
tration and management, the principle of the protection of
legitimate hopes and expectations, the duty to have regard for
the welfare of employees and the principles which require the
Appointing Authority to adopt a decision solely on the basis of
grounds which are relevant and which are not vitiated by mani-
fest errors of assessment.

Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Rounis v Commis-
sion

(1) Judgments of 16 May 2002 (ECR-SC IA-63;

II-301) and 30

September 2003 (ECR-SC IA-221; II-1079).

(Case T-311/05)

(2005/C 271/43)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E.
Alexiadou

Parties

Applicant(s): George Rounis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-312/05)

(2005/C 271/44)

Language of the case: Greek

Forms of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Parties:

— annul the Commission's decision refusing the transfer of
part of the applicant's salary intended to pay the university
fees for his daughter for the academic year 2003-2004;

Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: Dimitrios Triantafillou and Dimos Nikopoulos,
lawyer)

— award compensation for material and non-material damage
on account of
the various serious errors committed at
different levels, assessed ex aequo et bono EUR 13 582.88
together with interest at 5.25 % until full payment, subject
to any increase or decrease in the course of the proceed-
ings;

— in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who also brought Case T-17/01 (1), contests, in
particular, the Appointing Authority's refusal to transfer to the
United Kingdom the 35 % of his net monthly salary intended
to pay the fees for his daughter's university studies.

He states,
in that regard, that he provided evidence of the
actual expenses in the United Kingdom and that the right to
make such a transfer has been conferred on him since the judg-

Defendant(s): Effrosini Alexiadou

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of
EUR 26 068.11, corresponding to the principal sum owed
of EUR 23 036.31 and the sum of EUR 3 031.80 owed by
way of default interest from 1 March 2003 to 31 August
2005;

— order the defendant to pay to the Commission interest
amounting to EUR 3.31 per day until the entire amount
due has been paid in full;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.