Case T-289/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  13 October 2005  — Milella and Campanella v Commission
Date: 2005-12-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administration of the Institutions, allocation of seats, civil servants’ union, workers' representation

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/19

Form of order sought

— Annul the European Commission's Decision of 12 October
2005 excluding the candidacy and the offer of the consor-
tium headed by the applicant, whereby the Commission
revoked its decision on allocating the framework contract
to the consortium,
in relation to Tender EuropeAid//
119860/C/ — Lot No. 7;

— annul any decision by the Commission following the
Commission's Decision of 12 October 2005 and, in particu-
lar, any decision by the Commission to enter into contract
with other tenderers;

— order the Commission to pay all costs related to the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission issued, under reference EuropeAid//119860/C
— Lot No. 7, an invitation to tender for a multiple framework
contract to recruit technical assistance for short-term expertise
for the exclusive benefit of third countries benefiting from
European Commission external aid. The applicant, acting as
leader of a consortium, submitted a bid.

By the contested Decision the Commission excluded the appli-
cant's consortium on the grounds that the Danish Institute of
International Studies (‘DIIS’), a member of
the applicant's
consortium, was part of the same group as the Danish Institute
of Human Rights
(‘DIHR’), which participated in another
consortium bidding for the same contract. Article 13 of the
public procurement notice in question prohibited legal persons
within the same legal group from submitting more than one
application per lot.

In support of its request to annul the contested Decision the
applicant disputes the Commission's conclusion that DIIS,
DIHR and a third institute constitute a legal group. According
to the applicant, none of these entities controls the others as
the institutes are completely self-governing and each have a
separate statute, share no academic staff, have their own
management and board elected by completely different bodies,
and share no common economic interests or objectives. The
submits that any unclear points in the
applicant
procurement notice must be interpreted in favour of
the
tenderers and that
the Commission is responsible for not
making the conditions for participation clear beforehand.

further

Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2005
— BIC v Commission

(Case T -270/04) (1)

(2005/C 315/34)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2005 —
Umwelt- und Ingenieurtechnik v Commission

(Case T-125/05) (1)

(2005/C 315/35)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2005
— Milella and Campanella v Commission

(Case T-289/05)

(2005/C 315/36)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be