Case T-41/08: Action brought on 1 February 2008 — Vakakis v Commission
Date: 2007-02-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, invitation to tender, rural development, services contract, technical cooperation

C 92/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.4.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 12 July 2007 in Case T-144/02 Richard J. Eagle
and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II-0000 the Commission
was ordered by the Court of First Instance to pay the applicant
damages of a certain amount.

By payment of 16 November 2007 the Commission paid a
reduced amount having set off the sum of EUR 36 551,58. The
applicant challenges the decision of the Commission to reduce
the sums due to him by this amount.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission erred in law in reaching the contested decision, as
the decision was an unlawful abuse of process since the
Commission had withdrawn its claim for set-off during the
proceedings before the Court and therefore could not unilater-
ally pursue the issue subsequently.

The applicant furthermore contends that the contested decision
was contrary to a binding legitimate expectation of the appli-
cant, as the Commission had accepted the applicant's figures in
correspondence following the judgment of the Court.

Finally, the applicant claims that the debit notes upon which the
contested decision relied failed to provide a proper legal basis
for the decision and that the decision was based upon a funda-
mental miscalculation in relation to interest claimed.

Action brought on 22 January 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki
v Commission

(Case T-39/08)

(2008/C 92/69)

Language of the case: English

— order

the Commission to pay the applicant's damages
suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question
for an amount of EUR 441 564,50;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with this applica-
tion, even if the current application is rejected;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

portal

The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's
call
for an open tender concerning hosting, management,
enhancement, promotion and maintenance of the Commission's
Internet
(elearningeuropa.info)
(OJ 2007/S 87-105977). The applicant contests the defendant's
decision of 12 November 2007 rejecting the applicant's bid and
informing the applicant that the contract would be awarded to
another tenderer. The applicant further requests compensation
for the alleged damages caused by the tender procedure.

eLearning

on

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to
state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC. Furthermore,
the applicant alleges that the defendant confused evaluation
criteria with award criteria when evaluating the bids and used
evaluation criteria that were not disclosed to the tenderers
before the deadline for submitting the offers. Finally, the appli-
cant contends that the defendant violated the principle of non-
discrimination.

Action brought on 1 February 2008 — Vakakis v
Commission

Parties

Applicant:
Systimata
Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena
Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
(represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

(Case T-41/08)

(2008/C 92/70)

Language of the case: English

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Commission to evaluate the appli-
cant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the
successful contractor;

Applicant: Vakakis
International — Symvouli gia Agrotiki
Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O'Connor, Soli-
citor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/35

Form of order sought

— To declare this application admissible;

— to annul the unreasoned decision of the European Commis-
sion of 6 December 2007 (Reference No A3 TF TCC(2007)
106233) not to invite the consortium led by Vakakis Inter-
national SA to be interviewed in respect of
the service
tender procedure ‘Technical Assistance to Support Rural
Development Policy’ number EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY;

Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Shetland Islands
Council v Commission

(Case T-42/08)

(2008/C 92/71)

Language of the case: English

— to annul

the decision of

the European Commission of
21 December 2007 (Reference No A3 TF TCC(2007)
106667) to reject the tender submitted by Vakakis Interna-
tional SA on the basis that it did not meet the technical
requirements;

Instance,

to request

— pursuant to Article 65(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First
the Commission to
provide certain documents in relation to the activities of the
evaluation committee established to review the tenders
submitted in respect of
the EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY
tender procedure as well as the establishment of the short
list of tenderers;

Parties

E.
Islands Council
Applicant:
Whiteford, Barrister, R. Murray, Solicitor and R. Thompson, QC)

(represented

Shetland

by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— to make any additional order which the Court considers

— Annulment of Articles 1(2), 3, 4 and 5 of the decision; and

necessary;

— to order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Commission's letter of 6 December
2007 informing the applicant it would not be invited to inter-
view constitutes a decision which lacks sufficient reasoning in
breach of Article 253 EC. Moreover, the applicant submits that
this stage is an essential element of the tender procedure to
which all tenderers, even those failing to meet the technical
standard required, should be invited in order to maintain a
competitive environment. Furthermore,
the applicant argues
that the said decision is legally flawed since it is based on non-
compliance with the administrative criteria instead of non-
compliance to the technical standard required. This amounts,
according to the applicant, to a misuse of powers conferred to
the Commission in the framework of the tenders' evaluation
procedure.

In addition, and with regards to both the above-mentioned deci-
sion and the decision of 21 December 2007, the applicant
submits that they are incompatible with the terms of the Prac-
tical Guide to Contract Procedures for EC External actions.
Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission decision of
21 December 2007 purported to justify an unreasoned earlier
decision excluding the applicant from the tender and therefore
is legally flawed.

— the costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a public authority that made payments to the
fisheries sector under the scope of two general aid measures,
named ‘Aid to Fish Catching and Processing Industry’ and ‘Aid
to the Fish Farming Industry’ consisting of different types of aid
schemes. The Commission found that the aid which the United
Kingdom implemented on the basis of
the ‘Fishing Vessel
Modernisation Scheme’ was incompatible with the common
market, in so far as it concerned aid granted for the modernisa-
tion projects concerning capacity in terms of tonnage or power.

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment pursuant
to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision
C 37/2006 (ex NN 91/2005) of 13 November 2007 concerning
the Fishing Vessel Modernisation Scheme implemented in the
United Kingdom. In particular, the applicant seeks annulment of
Article 1(2), 3, 4, and 5 of the contested decision on two
grounds:

(1) The Commission allegedly erred in law in finding that
payments for replacement or improvement of engines that
do not affect the gross tonnage or power of any vessel
‘concern capacity in terms of tonnage or power’ within the
meaning
(EC)
9(1)(c)(i)
No 2792/1999 (1), and are thus incompatible with the
common market;

of Article

Regulation

of

(2) The Commission erred in law in finding that recovery of

payments would be compatible with:

(a) Article

14(1)

of

Council

Regulation

(EC)

No 659/1999 (2);