Case T-383/05: Action brought on  20 October 2005  — GHK Consulting/Commission
Date: 2005-12-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, contract, foreign policy, invitation to tender, technical cooperation

C 315/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.12.2005

Action brought on 13 October 2005 — Tea-Cegos and
STG v Commission

(Case T-376/05)

(2005/C 315/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): TEA-CEGOS (Madrid, Spain) and Services Techni-
ques Globaux (STG)
(represented by:
G.Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

(Brussels, Belgium)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

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

— annul the decision of 12 October 2005 rejecting the candi-
dature and bid of the TEA-CEGOS consortium and with-
drawing the decision awarding the framework contract to
the TEA-CEGOS consortium under the call
for tenders
EuropeAid -2/119860/C-LOT No 7;

— annul all the other decisions taken by the defendant under
that call for tenders following the decision of 12 October
2005 and,
the award decisions and the
contracts concluded by the Commission implementing
those decisions;

in particular,

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in these proceedings are members of the consor-
tium constituted for the purposes of
for tenders
‘EuropeAid/119860/C/SV/MULTI’ launched by the defendant. It
tendered for lot No 7 ‘Culture, Governance and Home Affairs’.

the call

On 20 May 2004, the consortium was informed by post that
its candidature had been accepted. By letter of 18 July 2005,
the defendant informed it that it considered it necessary to
review its decision awarding it the framework contract, and
justified that change by the fact that the decision in question
had been taken on the basis of inaccurate information commu-
nicated during the procedure. On 12 October 2005,
the
Commission took a decision confirming rejection of the appli-
cant's candidature and bid on the basis of the exclusion clause
provided for in Article 13 of the contract notice (1). To justify
its decision, it relied on the fact that one of the members of the
consortium was part of another group, one of the members of
which was taking part in another candidature for the same
contract. That is the contested decision.

notice was not applicable when an award decision had already
been taken. They also submit that they did not fail to commu-
nicate the documents requested by the defendant or supply
false information, so the conditions for applying Article 14 of
the instructions to tenderers, which would alone justify the
decision awarding the contract being challenged at that stage of
the procedure, had not been fulfilled.

‘legal group’

Secondly, the applicants claim that the defendant made a mani-
fest error of assessment of the concept of
in
Article 13 of the contract notice, by taking into account only
the structural criterion and excluding application of the test of
conflict of interest between candidates in the same call for
tenders. In the applicants' opinion, the defendant's assessment
is such as to undermine the principles of legal certainty. The
applicants also rely on a plea alleging breach of the duty to
state reasons.

The third plea raised by the applicants relates to the alleged
breach of the principle of good administration and a failure to
take steps. The applicants claim that, where there is uncer-
tainty, the defendant ought to have informed the consortium
within a reasonable time, and questioned them during the
tendering procedure and not after its decision awarding the
contract, which would have made it possible to save the costs
associated with their participation in the later stages of the
procedure.

By the final plea, the applicants submit that regard was not had
to their legitimate expectations and also rely on the theory of
retrait des actes adminstratifs (cancellation of administrative acts).
They claim that, in this case, the decision awarding the contract
was not unlawful and, accordingly, could not be withdrawn by
the defendant.

(1) Contract notice for a multiple framework contract ‘Multiple frame-
work contract to recruit technical assistance for short-term expertise for the
exclusive benefit of third countries benefiting from the European Commis-
sion's external aid’ 2004/S 132-111932, OJ S 132.

Action brought on 20 October 2005 — GHK Consulting/
Commission

(Case T-383/05)

(2005/C 315/33)

Language of the case: English

In support of their action for annulment, the applicants rely on
several pleas in law.

Parties

By the first, they claim that the defendant was in breach of the
contractual documents inasmuch as it misapplied Article 13 of
the contract notice and Article 14 of
the instructions to
tenderers. The applicants claim that Article 13 of the contract

Applicant(s): GHK Consulting
Kingdom) [represented by: J-E. Svensson, M. Dittmer, lawyers]

(London, United

Limited

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

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