Case T-9/06: Action brought on  17 January 2006  — Equant Belgium v Commission
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, services contract, telematics

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/43

The Commission considered that the aid had been granted in
the context of an arrangement in two parts in which, first,
Componenta sold its holding (50 %) in the property investment
company Karkkilan Keskustakiinteistöt Oy to the municipality
of Karkkila, which already owned 50 % of that company, and,
second, the property investment company repaid Componenta
the shareholder's loan invested in that company. At the same
time the municipality of Karkkila invested in the company a
new additional loan in the same amount.

As regards the investment clause in the sale contract, the appli-
cant submits that the Commission assessed that clause and its
significance incorrectly.

(1) OJ 1993 C 307, 13.11.1993, p. 3.

According to the Commission, the State aid consists of both
the purchase price and the repayment of the shareholder's loan.

Action brought on 17 January 2006 — Equant Belgium v
Commission

The applicant refers inter alia to the following points in
support of its application:

The Commission's decision is incorrect and unlawful
in its
entirety as regards both its grounds and its amount. The appli-
cant claims that the Commission committed a breach of essen-
tial procedural requirements and an abuse of discretion, since it
made a manifestly wrong assessment of the evidence put to it
during the investigative procedure. The applicant also submits
that the Commission's decision is contrary to the provisions of
Article 87 EC on State aid. It further asserts that the conclusion
of the decision is unreasonable with respect to it and in breach
of the principle of proportionality laid down in the third para-
graph of Article 5 EC.

The applicant submits that the Commission applied the wrong
procedure when assessing the value of the shares in the prop-
erty investment company which were the subject of the trans-
action. The applicant claims, contrary to the Commission's
view,
the value of the subject of the transaction was
assessed in accordance with market conditions at the time of
the transaction.

that

As regards the shareholder's loan arrangement, the applicant
submits that no economic advantage accrued to it as a result of
the arrangement. In its view, the Commission wrongly assessed
the nature and significance of the arrangement. In addition, the
reasons stated in the Commission's decision concerning the
shareholder's loan arrangement are in the applicant's view
unclear and defective.

(Case T-9/06)

(2006/C 48/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Equant Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) [represented
by: T. Müller-Ibold, T. Graf, lawyers]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

(i) the decision of

the European Commission dated
December 6, 2005 to suspend the signing of
the
contract identified in the Commission's earlier decision
of November 3, 2005 relating to the award of the
contract pursuant to the following procurement proce-
dure: ‘Restricted invitation to tender No ENTR/04/011
— Lot 1 Secured Trans European Services for Tele-
matics between administrations (s-TESTA)’;

(ii) the decision of

the European Commission dated
December 27, 2005 to reject the Offer submitted by
Equant/HP in the framework of the Restricted invita-
tion to tender No ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 ‘Secured
Trans European Services
for Telematics between
administrations (s-TESTA)’ and to tacitly withdraw its
decision in favour of Equant/HP dated November 3,
2005; and

Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission's decision
conflicts with the practice it followed in other State aid cases
and does not correspond to the principles set out
in the
Commission's communication to the Member States on the
application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of
Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to public
undertakings in the manufacturing sector. (1)

(iii) the decision of the European Commission communi-
cated to the Applicant by the same letter of December
27, 2005 to select another tenderer for the award of
the contract in the framework of the Restricted invita-
tion to tender No. ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 ‘Secured
Trans European Services
for Telematics between
administrations (s-TESTA)’;

C 48/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

— grant any other relief that the Court considers appropriate

in the circumstances; and, in any event;

— order the Commission to pay Equant's legal costs and other
fees and expenses incurred in connection with this applica-
tion.

The applicant further submits that the Commission breached
the principle of transparency by relying on an unsupported
interpretation of its tendering specifications and that it brea-
ched Regulation 2342/2002 as well as the principles of
equality, proportionality and good administration by failing to
ask for clarifications or apply less restrictive remedies. The
applicant finally alleges that the Commission also violated the
principle of legitimate expectations as well as the rights of
defence and the duty to state reasons for its decisions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

applicant,

in conjunction with another

for Telematics between administrations

The
company,
submitted an offer to the Commission in the context of a
procurement procedure relevant to the Commission's contract
notice No. 2004/S 137-116821 ‘Lot 1 — Secured Trans Euro-
pean Services
(s-
TESTA)’. By letter dated 3 November 2005 the Commission
informed the applicant that its joint offer had been selected for
the award of the contract. However, by letter dated 6 December
2005 the Commission informed the applicant
it had
decided to suspend the signing of the contract, awaiting further
letter, dated 27
the offers. By a further
examination of
December 2005, the Commission informed the applicant that
it had decided to reject
the applicant's joint offer on the
grounds that it did not conform to the tendering specifications
and to award the contract to another tenderer.

that

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 December 2005
— Raymond Claudel v Court of Auditors

(Case T -338/05) (1)

(2006/C 48/82)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 296 of 26.11.2005.

In support of its application to annul the above decisions, the
applicant first of all disputes in detail the Commission's findings
its offer, more particularly its
that certain components of
waiver of one-off installation charges for an initial two-year
period, the inclusion of a five-year discount period in preparing
prices and its volume discount on the monthly charges for
turnkey access points, were contrary to the specifications. The
applicant's position is that in identifying an alleged incompat-
ibility the Commission committed a manifest error of assess-
ment and that the contested decisions are unlawful.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 January 2006 —
GHK Consulting v Commission

(Case T -383/05 R)

(2006/C 48/83)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court of First Justice has ordered that the
case be removed from the register.