Case T-476/07: Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex
Date: 2007-12-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), award of contract, computer equipment, computer systems, invitation to tender, patent, services contract, software

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/55

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings, including interest at 8 %.

Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Evropaïki
Dynamiki v Frontex

— Take such other or further measures as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (1) provides that Member
States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its
active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid
down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of
Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007
concerning the non-inclusion of
to
Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisa-
tions for plant protection products containing that substance (2).

trifluralin in Annex I

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
Commission failed to base its decision on the report from the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and thereby misused its
powers.

The applicants further contend that
contains manifest errors of appraisal in that the Commission:

the contested decision

(Case T-476/07)

(2008/C 51/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational
Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

— failed to take all

the available scientific evidence into

account as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414;

Form of order sought

— failed to extend the relevant deadlines although the circum-
stances and criteria for the assessment of trifluralin changed
during the review process;

— did not have a scientific justification for its findings;

— lacked competence to assess trifluralin under Regulation
850/2004 (3) and, in any event, erred in its assessment.

Moreover, the applicants allege that the contested decision does
not comply with the applicable legislative procedures and that
the Commission and EFSA infringed Article 8(7) and (8) of
Regulation 451/2000 (4) by not complying with the procedural
deadlines, which according to the applicants amounts to a
breach of an essential procedural requirement.

that

the applicants submit

Finally,
the contested decision is
inadequately reasoned in violation of Article 253 EC and that it
infringes the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, non-
retroactivity, the protection of the applicants' legitimate expecta-
tions and their right to be heard.

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230,
p. 1).

(2) OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and
amending Directive 79/117/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 7).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000
laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second
and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2)
of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25).

— Annul the decision of FRONTEX to evaluate the applicant's
to the

successful and award the contract

bid as not
successful tenderer;

— order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's damages suffered on
the tendering procedure in question for an

account of
amount of 500 000 EUR;

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

— order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's legal and other costs
and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call
for an open tender for the provision of informatics services and
hardware and software licences (OJ 2007/S 114-139890). The
applicant contests the defendant's decision of 3 October 2007
rejecting the applicant's bid and informing the applicant that the
contract will be awarded to another tenderer.

failed

to state

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
in accordance with
defendant
Article 253 EC and used evaluation criteria that were not
expressly included in the call for tender. Furthermore, the appli-
cant alleges that the defendant committed manifest errors of
assessment.

reasons