Case T-333/08: Action brought on 11 August 2008 — Bull and Others v Commission
Date: 2008-08-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: France, Luxembourg, action for annulment (EU), market stabilisation, price agreement

C 285/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.11.2008

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008
— Marcuccio v Commission

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by:
J Currall and C. Barnardis-Kayser, Agents, and
A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

(Case T-143/08) (1)

(Civil service — Social security — Refusal of the application
for reimbursement of 100 % of certain medical expenses
incurred by the applicant)

Re:

(2008/C 285/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Inter alia, an application, first, for annulment of the Commission
decision refusing the applicant's claim for reimbursement of
100 % of certain medical expenses incurred and, secondly, for
an order that the Commission pay him EUR 89,56 by way of
additional reimbursement of medical expenses or as compensa-
tion for loss.

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: G.

Operative part of the order

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by:
J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents and A. Dal
Ferro, lawyer)

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Re:

Inter alia, an application for annulment of the decisions of the
office responsible for settling claims of the Joint Sickness Insur-
ance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to pay
100 % of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant or
to reimburse the expenses for a medical visit in accordance with
the rules applicable to consultations of medical experts, and an
the Commission be ordered to pay certain
application that
medical expenses for the applicant.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 223 of 22.9.2007 (formerly Case F-20/07).

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008
— Marcuccio v Commission

(1) OJ C 235, 6.10.2007 (formerly Case F-84/06).

Action brought on 11 August 2008 — Bull and Others v
Commission

(Case T-333/08)

(2008/C 285/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Bull SAS (Les Clayes-sous-Bois, France), Unisys
Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) and Tata Consultancy Services
(TCS) SA (Capellen, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Lombaert
and M. van der Woude, lawyers)

(Case T-144/08) (1)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Staff case — Social security — Rejection of a claim for reim-
bursement of 100 % of certain of the applicant's medical
expenses)

(2008/C 285/78)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision, namely:

— the rejection of the tender of Consortium B-Trust

— the decision not to award the contract

— the decision to open a negotiated procedure;

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by:

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/43

Pleas in law and main arguments

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European
Communities

The applicants challenge the Commission's decision to reject
their tender submitted in connection with the call for tenders
procedure
‘DIGIT/R2/PO/2007/024 —
Managed services provision’ (OJ 2007 S 159 — 197776) and
the decision not to award the contract in the absence of satisfac-
tory tenders and to open the negotiated procedure.

concerning contract

In support of their application, the applicants claim, first of all,
that the contested decision was not taken in compliance with
the rules for the conferral of powers within the Commission,
since the decision was taken by an ‘Acting Head of Unit’. The
applicants take the view that it was not established that the
author of the measure was in fact entitled to adopt such a deci-
sion in the Commission's name.

Secondly, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed
its obligation to state reasons by not setting out, in its decision,
the grounds on which it considered that certain prices in the
applicant's tender were unusually low and that the tender did
not comply with the relevant legal provisions in the event of
performance of the contract in Brussels or Luxembourg.

Finally, the applicants consider that the Commission infringed
the procedure for checking that the prices were lawful, in so far
as (i) the Commission excluded the applicant's tender on the
basis of
the procedure in respect of unusually low prices,
whereas the tender was financially sound, (ii) the Commission
did not take into account the reasons provided by the applicants
and (iii) the contested decision was not based on an accurate
account of the facts.

Appeal brought on 14 August 2008 by Marianne Timmer
against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Timmer v Court of Auditors

(Case T-340/08 P)

(2008/C 285/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Annul the order of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Marianne

Timmer v Court of Auditors;

— Uphold the claim for compensation for loss suffered;

— Uphold the claim for costs against the Court of Auditors.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the applicant seeks annulment of the order of
the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06
Timmer v Court of Auditors whereby the Tribunal dismissed as
inadmissible her action claiming, first that the Tribunal should
annul her staff reports for the period 1984 to 1997 along with
the connected and/or
including that
appointing the reporting officer concerned to the position of
Head of the Dutch Unit in the Translation Department of the
Court of Auditors and, second, a claim for damages to compen-
sate for the loss allegedly suffered.

subsequent decisions,

In support of her appeal, the applicant relies on six pleas in law
alleging:

— distortion the facts capable of being inferred from the
evidence submitted to the Tribunal and error in assigning
the burden of proof;

— distortion of

request

the applicant's

the Staff Regulations of Officials of

to the appointing
authority of 29 July 2005 concerning compliance with
Article 14 of
the
European Communities in the version in force prior to the
modification thereof by the entry into force Regulation
No 723/2004 (1) inasmuch as that request did not seek the
re-examination of the applicant's staff reports as indicated at
paragraph 37 of the order under appeal;

— error in the legal classification of the pre-litigation complaint
of 26 February 2006, the aim of which was the annulment
of the staff reports and the decision on the applicant's career
and not ‘taking into account of numerous other new facts’
(paragraph 41 of the order under appeal);

— failure to state reasons

for

the decision to reject

the

complaint;

Appellant: Marianne Timmer (Saint-Sauves-d'Auvergne, France)
(represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

— in the alternative, failure to state sufficient reasons for that
inasmuch as the Tribunal should have

decision to reject,
examined the insufficiency of the reasons stated;