Case T-333/07: Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Entrance Services v Parliament
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, action for annulment (EU), contract, financial regulation, invitation to tender, maintenance, parliament

C 269/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the defendant
wrongly assessed the facts in the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In addition, it has submitted that the conditions for a reduction
pursuant to Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1) were
not satisfied. In that regard, the applicant submits that the real-
location made would cause no significant change to the
programme. In addition, it takes the view that the mere refer-
ence to the ‘guidelines for the financial closure of operational
assistance
Funds’
(SEC(1999) 1316) is not sufficient to show the significance of
the change.

(1994-1999)

from the

Structural

Even if there were a significant change to the programme, the
applicant submits that the Commission should have used its
discretion under Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 with
implementation of the programme. The
regard to the actual
applicant submits that
the defendant should have assessed
whether a reduction in the ERDF assistance was proportionate.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying
down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds
between themselves and with the operations of the European Invest-
ment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374,
31.12.1988, p. 1).

Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Entrance Services
v Parliament

(Case T-333/07)

(2007/C 269/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Entrance Services NV (Vilvoorde, Belgium)
sented by: A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, lawyers)

(repre-

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Declare the action for annulment admissible;

— Annul the decision by which the Parliament rejected the
applicant's tender and granted the contract
to another
tenderer, a decision notified to the applicant on 14 August
2007;

— Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

By this action the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision
of
the Parliament of 14 August 2007 rejecting its tender
submitted in the framework of the tender procedure for the
repair and maintenance of
for
conclusion of a contract
automatic
in
and similar
joinery
European Parliament buildings in Brussels [(contract for the
provision
tender
No IFIN-BATIBRU-JLD-S0765-00)] (1).

2007-2010)

equipment,

equipment

services

(call

for

of

In support of its action the applicant claims, first, an infringe-
ment of Article 10 of the schedule of administrative clauses and
of Article 93(1) of
the
Parliament accepted a tender submitted by a tenderer which,
according to the applicant, was excluded under Article 10 of the
schedule of administrative clauses as a result of a finding by the
Commission that it had participated in a cartel.

the Financial Regulation (2),

in that

Second, the applicant maintains that the Parliament infringed
Articles 97 and 98 of the Financial Regulation and Article 137
of the Implementing Regulation (3) by requiring tenderers to
establish their technical capacity to carry out the contract by
means of evidence other than that referred to by those provi-
sions.

the Implementing Regulation,

Third, the applicant relies on a plea alleging the infringement of
Articles 97 and 98 of
the Financial Regulation and of
the
Article 135(5) of
Parliament required tenderers to demonstrate their economic
and financial capacity to carry out the contract by means of
evidence not provided for in those provisions, and in that it
rejected the applicant's tender on the ground that it had failed
to provide the evidence required.

in that

the Financial Regulation,

Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision should
be annulled because it infringes the equality principle laid down
the
in Article 89(1) of
Parliament rejected its tender and awarded the contract
to
another tenderer even though it was in the same situation as
the applicant with regard to the non-production of the certifica-
tions required by Article 11 of the schedule of administrative
clauses.

in that

(1) Contract notice published in OJ 2006/S 148-159062.
(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 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation

of
23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementa-
tion of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the
Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities, as amended (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

Euratom) No

2342/2002

(EC,