Case T-524/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — AIB-Vinçotte Luxembourg v Parliament
Date: 2008-12-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, Luxembourg, action for annulment (EU), damages, urban construction

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/51

The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in
support of its claims:

the applicant claims that

the contested measure was
First,
adopted by the Commission with breach of procedural require-
ment of a written proposal made by a Consultant prior to the
Commission decision, as required by the General Conditions
and Specific Guidelines applicable to the Framework Contract
project ‘Value Chain Mapping Analysis’.

Second, the applicant submits that the contested measure was
adopted with violation of its right to be heard by impartial
authority.

Third, it argues that the contested measure was adopted with
breach of its right to be dealt with by an authority free of a
conflict of interest.

the applicant contends

Further,
that, when adopting the
contested measure, the defendant failed to correctly and fairly
calculate and analyse the number of working days deducted
from the total number of the days allocated to the applicant for
carrying out its tasks.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its
power when adopting the contested measure as it didn't take
into account for the evaluation of a number of working days
allocated to the applicant
the mistakes committed by the
Consultant.

medical treatments and medications to alleviate and or treat
his impaired health, referred to in the first claim above,
which are not available to him through the socialized
medical system of his Member State;

— order the Commission to pay reasonable legal costs and
in bringing the

disbursements incurred by the applicant
present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-
contractual liability arising from the damages it claims to have
incurred as a result of the alleged illegal refusal by the Commis-
sion to comply with plenary resolution of the European Parlia-
ment (1) and to enforce the application by Denmark of the
provisions of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996
laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the
health of workers and the general public against the dangers
arising from ionizing radiation (2)
to the case of workers,
including the applicant, involved in a nuclear accident in Thule,
Greenland.

(1) European Parliament report of 20 April 2007 on the public health
crash (Petition 720/2002)

the 1968 Thule

consequences of
[2006/2012(INI)].

(2) OJ L 159, p. 1.

Action brought on 27 Novembre 2008 — Eriksen/
Commission

Action brought on 2 December 2008 — AIB-Vinçotte
Luxembourg v Parliament

(Case T-516/08)

(2009/C 44/90)

Language of the case: English

(Case T-524/08)

(2009/C 44/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Heinz Helmuth Eriksen (Ebeltoft, Denmark)
sented by: I. Anderson, advocate)

(repre-

Applicant: AIB-Vinçotte
Luxembourg ASBL
Luxembourg) (represented by R. Adam, lawyer)

(Luxembourg,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
800 000 EUR or such other sum as the Court may consider-
able just and equitable for past, present and future pain,
suffering and diminution of
life from
serious
to his health resulting from the
impairments
Commission's capricious and unlawful refusal to enforce the
implementation of medical monitoring of
former Thule
workers for radiation related illnesses and conditions;

the enjoyment of

— order

the
the Commission to pay to the applicant or
medical treating facilities or care givers, the future costs of

— annul the decision of the European Parliament of 2 October
2008 rejecting the offer made by the applicant in connec-
tion with call for tenders INLO — A — BATI LUX —
07 268 & 271 — 00 for the refurbishment and extension
of the Konrad Adenauer Building, Luxembourg,

— reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and
the Parliament pay

actions,
damages in connection with the loss incurred;

in particular an order

that

— in any event, order the Parliament to pay the costs.

C 44/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicant contests the Parliament's decision to reject its
offer submitted in connection with the call for tenders for lot B
of the contract relating to the projected extension and refurbish-
ment of
the KAD building in Luxembourg — Tasks of an
approved inspection body (OJ 2008 S 193-254240).

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward four
pleas in law:

— manifest error of assessment on the part of the Parliament,
in that (i) the association to which the contract was awarded
did not have the necessary authorisations to perform the
tasks requested, as required in the tender specifications, and
(ii) that association's offer stated a price that was abnormally
low having regard to the criteria in the specifications;

— infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that (i) the
Parliament did not state the specific benefits of the offer
accepted in comparison with the applicant's offer, thus not
enabling the applicant to identify the reasons why its offer
was not accepted, and (ii) the applicant was not put in a
position to know whether the assessment committee met
and, if so, what its conclusions were;

— infringement of the principles of diligence, good administra-
tion and transparency, as the Parliament failed to provide
the explanations requested within a reasonable time;

— infringement of the provisions of the administrative specifi-
cations, in that neither the contested decision nor the subse-
quent letters mentioned remedies.

Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Poste Italiane v
Commission

(Case T-525/08)

(2009/C 44/92)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Poste Italiane (Rome, Italy) (represented by A. Fratini,
A. Sandulli and F. Filpo, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— Upholding of the action and as a result annulment of the
Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 relating to aid
C 42/2006 put into effect by Italy in order to provide a
return on the current accounts of Poste Italiane with the
State Treasury, not yet published in the Official Journal of the
European Union;

— an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the Commission's decision of
16 July 2008 relating to aid C 42/2006 put into effect by Italy
in order to provide a return on the current accounts of Poste
Italiane with the State Treasury. That decision declared incompa-
tible with the common market, ordering its repayment, the
system of State aid relating to the return on Poste Italiane
current accounts with the Treasury, established by Law No 266
of 23 December 2005, and by the agreement between the
Ministry of
the Economy and Finance and Poste Italiane of
23 February 2006, which was put into effect by Italy, suppo-
sedly unlawfully, in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

In support of its claims the applicant invokes:

— infringement of Article 253 and of the first subparagraph of
Article 87 of the EC Treaty, due to errors of fact and a mani-
fest error of assessment, so far as concerns the Commission's
application of the prudent borrower test, going so far as to
establish a private borrower rate.

— infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 87 of the
EC Treaty, due to a manifest error of assessment, with regard
to the evaluation of alternative investments. It is stressed in
this respect that, in the course of the administrative proceed-
ings, the Italian authorities stated that the criterion set out
in the agreement, governing the management of spare funds
derived from the postal collection, penalises Poste with
regard to the possibility of making profits from active
management, and therefore does not confer any ‘advantage’
for the purposes of Article 87 of the Treaty.

Here, the applicant also refers to the relevance of the RBS study
and of the opinions of financial brokers, and to the comparison
with trading type management, with the management of funds
from Poste Vita insurance policies, and with the cost of the
Treasury's debt.

— Infringement of Article 253 and of the first subparagraph of
Article 87 of the Treaty, due to failure to state reasons and a
manifest error of assessment, and breach of the principles of
the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty,
in relation to the lack of any analysis of the element of
advantage and of distortion of competition in the context of
the universal service mission assumed by Poste.