Case T-114/06: Action brought on  14 April 2006  — GLOBE v Commission
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Central Asia, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, energy distribution, energy grid, information system, invitation to tender

C 131/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Action brought on 14 April 2006 — GLOBE v Commis-
sion

(Case T-114/06)

(2006/C 131/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: GLOBE NV (Zandhoven, Belgium) (represented by: A.
Abate, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the European Commission decision contained in the
letter of 2 March 2006 from the Procurement Co-ordinator,
the EuropeAid Co-operation Office,
Directorate D/3 of
concerning
EuropeAid/122078/C/S/Multi,
entitled ‘Supply of a Pipeline Network Information System
to the Central Asia Gas companies (Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)’;

project

the

— Determine the Commission's non-contractual liability with
regard to the adoption of the decision referred to above;

— Order the Commission to pay compensation for the loss
caused to the applicant assessed at EUR 492 024,00 plus
interest for late payment from the date of the judgment's
publication;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant took part in the tendering procedure in respect
of the project EuropeAid/122078/C/S/Multi, entitled ‘Innova-
tion to tender for Supply of a Pipeline Network Information
System to the Central Asia Gas companies (Kazakhstan, Kyrgy-
stan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)’, which is part of the TACIS
Programme 2002 (1). By letter of 2 March 2006, the Commis-
sion notified the applicant that its tender had been unsuccessful
because it was not the lowest and that the contract had been
awarded to a competing undertaking. In this action, the appli-
cant seeks annulment of the decision contained in that letter
and compensation for
to have
sustained as a result of the adoption of the contested decision.

the loss which it claims

The applicant relies on a number of pleas to dispute that deci-
sion.

First of all, it submits that in adopting the contested decision
the Commission made major errors of assessment and that it
contravened the Instructions to tenderers, rendering null and
tenderer.
void the award of
Under that plea,
the proposal
accepted by the Commission does not comply with the tech-
nical specifications in the contract documents. It also criticises
the Commission for extending the period for the submission of
tenders and for having asked the applicant's competitor to

the applicant contends that

to the successful

the contract

change its tender in the light of the Corrigendum to the tender
dossier, after the opening of tenders, which allowed the ulti-
mately successful tenderer to amend its tender so as to make it
the best offer. The applicant thus alleges a breach of the prin-
ciple of the protection of legitimate expectations in that its
proposal, the least expensive at the opening of tenders, was not
ultimately successful.

Secondly, the applicant claims that by omitting to notify it,
before taking the contested decision, of the grounds on which
it proposed to change the order of precedence of the tenders
set out at the public tender-opening session, the Commission
deprived the applicant of the possibility to submit its view and,
as a result, infringed its right to be heard.

The third plea put forward by the applicant relates to the
Commission's alleged breach of the duty to give reasons, those
provided being, according to the applicant,
insufficient and
contradictory.

By its fourth plea, the applicant alleges a breach of the principle
in its view, the
of sound administration of justice in that,
Commission demonstrated negligence in its late communica-
tion of the results of the tender selection procedure and in its
late replies to various letters from the applicant.

(1) Programme founded on Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
99/2000 of 29 December 1999 concerning the provision of assis-
tance to the partner States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (OJ
2000 L 12, p. 1)

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Zuffa v OHIM

(Case T-118/06)

(2006/C 131/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, USA) (represented by: S. Maly-
nicz, Barrister, M. Blair, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 30 January
2006 in Case R 931/2005-1 dismissing the appeal under
Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) CTMR shall be annulled.

— The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the

applicant.