Case T-63/06: Action brought on  16 February 2006  — Eyropaïki Dynamiki v EMCDDA
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, computer systems, invitation to tender, service, software

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/45

— Annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision

insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina; or

has therefore allegedly violated the applicant's rights in respect
of the principle of legitimate expectations, the principles of
legal certainty, presumption of validity, ‘lex specialis’ and ‘effet
utile’, as well as the principle of good administration.

— order that the present exemption authorised by Council
Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December
2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by
the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful
State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

— annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision
insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina and order that
the present exemption authorised by Council Decision
2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and
that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian
State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or
at least not be recovered;

— In the alternative, modify Articles 5 and 6 of the contested
decision insofar as they pertain to Euralluminia to the effect
that pursuant to the present exemption until 31 December
2006, or at least until 31 December 2003, any sums fore-
gone and to be foregone by the Italian State not be recov-
ered; and

Furthermore it is submitted that in deciding that the applicant's
legitimate expectation came to an end on 2 February 2002, the
Commission failed to take the appropriate period over which
any investments were to be made and amortised relating to the
applicant's plant into account. The Commission has, therefore,
allegedly failed to state the reasons underlying the contested
decision.

(1) 2001/224/EC: Council Decision of 12 March 2001 concerning
reduced rates of excise duty and exemptions from such duty on
certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes (OJ L 84, p. 23)

Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Eyropaïki Dyna-
miki v EMCDDA

— order that the Commission pay all of the costs of the

(Case T-63/06)

proceedings.

(2006/C 86/84)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 7
December 2005 addressed to the French Republic, Ireland and
the Italian Republic relating to a series of Council Decisions
authorising exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used
for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region
In the contested decision, the Commission
and in Sardinia.
found that the exemptions constituted State aid.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that it had
the right to expect that the present exemption, proposed by the
Commission and unanimously approved by Council Decision
2001/224/EEC (1) until the end of December 2006 is a legally
valid Community act and that any act taken by the Italian State
and the applicant to implement and rely on these measures
would not lead to an unlawful result. According to the appli-
cant, it had the right to expect that the monies foregone by the
Italian State in accordance with the exemptions legally granted
would not be recovered in any event. The Commission, by
claiming that the application of the exemptions was a State aid
recoverable from 3 February 2002 until 31 December 2003,

Parties

Applicant: Eyropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepi-
koinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
[represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer]

Defendant: The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
Drug Addiction

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the European Monitoring Centre for
Drugs and Drug Addiction to evaluate the applicant's bid as
not successful and award the contract to the successful
contractor,

C 86/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

— order the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug
Addiction to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and
expenses incurred in connection with this application as
well as damages stemming from the tendering procedure.

Finally,
the applicant submits that
contains evident errors of assessment.

the contested decision

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted a bid in response to an open call for
tender by the defendant for software programming and consul-
tancy services (JO 2005/S 187-183846). The applicant contests
the decision to reject its bid and to award the contract to
another bidder.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
contested decision was taken in violation of the principle of
non-discrimination and transparency, as well as in violation of
Directive 92/50 (1) and the Financial Regulation (2). According
to the applicant, its bid was rejected on criteria that were not
included in the contract notice. The applicant also claims that
the defendant failed to request clarifications from the applicant
and therefore infringed the principle of good administration.

(1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coor-
dination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ
L 209, p. 1)

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2006 —
Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM

(Case T -330/05) (1)

(2006/C 86/85)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.