Case T-8/09: Action brought on 6 January 2009 — Dredging International and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul v EMSA
Date: 2009-01-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), environmental protection, hydrocarbon, maritime transport, pollution control measures, provision of services, services contract

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/27

Action brought on 6 January 2009 — Dredging
International and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul v EMSA

regulation (3) and Article 158a(1) of the Commission Regulation
No 2342/2002 (4).

(Case T-8/09)

(2009/C 82/48)

Language of the case: English

Second, the applicants submit that the defendant committed
manifest errors of assessment while evaluating the bid submitted
by the successful tenderer by which it infringed the principles of
equal treatment and non-discrimination as stated in Article 89
of the financial regulation.

the

Third, the applicants contend that the defendant committed
several manifest errors of assessment in its decision to reject the
reason of non compliance with
applicants' bid for
Article 12.2 of the tender specifications without further exam-
ining the applicants' arguments. In the applicants' opinion, the
defendant infringed therefore the principles of proportionality,
equal
and non-discrimination in violation of
Article 89(1) of the financial regulation.

treatment

Fourth, the applicants claim that in the interpretation given by
the defendant
the
budget ceiling is manifestly unreasonable and does not allow
that any confirming tenders are submitted.

tender specifications,

to Article 12.2 of

(1) OJ 2008/S 48-065631.
(2) The regulation of the European Maritime Safety Agency adopted on
9 December 2003 laying down detailed rules for the implementation
of the financial regulation of 9 December 2003 which applies to the
budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency adopted by the
Administrative Board on 3 July 2003.

(3) 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 L 248, p. 1).

(4) 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 (OJ L 357, p. 1).

Euratom) No

2342/2002

(EC,

Parties

Applicant: Dredging International NV (Zwijndrecht, Belgium)
and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul NV (Hofstade-Aalst, Belgium)
(represented by: R. Martens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)

Form of order sought

— annul EMSA's decision to reject the tender from the Joint
Venture Oil Combat (JVOC) constituted by the applicants
and to award the contract to the successful contractor;

— declare that the contract signed between EMSA and the
successful contractor pursuant to procurement procedure
EMSA/NEG/3/2008 is null and void;

— award damages as compensation for the loss that JVOC has
incurred as a consequence of the contested decision, provi-
sionally estimated at 725 500 EUR, to be increased by the
moratory interest as from the date of the filing of this appli-
cation;

— order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings,
including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by JVOC.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicants seek the annulment of the
defendant's decision to reject their bid submitted in response to
for a tender EMSA/NEG/3/2008 (Lot 2: North Sea)
a call
regarding the service contracts
recovery
vessel(s) (1) and to award the contract
to the successful
contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the
alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.

stand-by oil

for

Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki
v Commission

(Case T-17/09)

(2009/C 82/49)

In support of their claims, the applicants put forward four pleas
in law.

Language of the case: English

First, they argue that by refusing to provide the applicants with
the information they requested regarding the reasons for rejec-
tion of the bid submitted by them and on the characteristics
and relative advantages of the bid of the successful contractor
the Regulation (2),
the defendant infringed Article 135(2) of
Article 253 EC and the essential procedural requirements of
duty to state reasons and of respect for the rights of defence.
failed to
The applicants
the defendant
suspend the signature of
the contract with the successful
tenderer pending the exchange of relevant information with the
applicants by which it violated Article 105(2) of the financial

further claim that

Parties

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities