Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

29.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 289/31

In support of her claims, she alleges, apart from the fact of
having been the victim of harassment in the work place, an
error in the reasoning and irregularity in the promotion
procedure, in that the contested decision does not enable her
to know if it was really the Appointing Authority which made
the choice provided for by Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
or whether it confined itself to confirming the conclusions of
the Consultative Commission on Promotions (CCP).

**Action brought on 21 September 2003 by Michael Cwik**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-331/03)**

(2003/C 289/64)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 September 2003 by Michael
Cwik, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Secretary General’s decision of 31 October
2002 confirming unamended the applicant’s staff report
for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;

—
order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 6 500;

—
order the defendant to pay all the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant in this case challenges the appointing authority’s
refusal to amend his staff report for the period 1999/2001.

In support of his claims he puts forward the following
arguments:

—
that there was a breach of the pre-litigation procedure
because, inter alia, the staff report in question was drawn
up on the basis of two memos drafted by two of his
former line managers. It is not clear whether the first of
those two memos refers to the period concerned, while
the second refers to matters taking place after that period.

The Joint Committee on Staff Reports did not express an
opinion on all the criticisms levelled by the applicant and
he was not consulted beforehand;

— that there was in the circumstances of the case a manifest
error of appreciation inasmuch as, on the one hand, the
staff report at issue contains criticisms to which voice
was never given at the material time, which are strongly
contested and which are not borne out by any evidence
and as, on the other, the defendant puts forward a
problem which arose after the period covered by the
report.

Lastly, the applicant alleges misuse by the Commission of its
powers and mental harassment.

**Action brought on 29 September 2003 by European**
**Service Network against the Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**(Case T-332/03)**

(2003/C 289/65)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 September 2003 by European
Service Network, established in Brussels, represented by René
Steichen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul Invitation to tender ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS —
Lot 1;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant submitted a tender pursuant to lot 1 of Invitation
to tender ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS. The applicant was not
successful.

The applicant contests the award of the contract to the
successful tenderer. According to the applicant, the Commission did not comply with the principle of equal treatment
of tenderers or the rule of transparency in the tendering
procedure.

C 289/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 29.11.2003

The applicant claims, first, that the successful tenderer received
favourable financial treatment, to the detriment of the other
tenderers.The applicantalso alleges that the successful tenderer
had privileged access to essential information. The applicant
alleges in particular that the other tenderers did not have
access to certain essential technical information on the current
status of the database for the CORDIS project.

The applicant also submits that the criteria used in the award
of the tender do not conform to those laid down in the
contract documents and that the Commission applied in a
discriminatory manner the criteria published in the contract
documents for the selection of the tender giving the best
quality/price ratio.

**Action brought on 30 September 2003 by Masdar (U.K.)**
**Ltd against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-333/03)**

(2003/C 289/66)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 September 2003 by Masdar
(U.K.) Ltd, Eversley, Hampshire, (United Kingdom), represented
by Philip Bentley QC and Patrick Green, Barrister.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
order the Commission to pay to the applicant:

i) the sum of EUR 448 947,78

ii) interest on the said sum as at 31 July 2003 in the
amount of £ 98 121,24 plus interest from 1 August
2003 until the date of judgment

iii) compensation for material damage, loss of profits
and non-material damage in an amount of
£ 1 532 931,09;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

According to the applicant, its claim arises out of two TACIS
contracts between the Commission and a contractor regarding
two projects in Moldova and Russia. The contractor subcontracted with the applicant to provide some of the services.
When the applicant discovered what it considered to be
irregularities on the part of the contractor, it informed the
Commission Services. On the understanding that it would be
paid for the services rendered, the applicant carried out the
services necessary for completion of the projects covered
by the contracts. Subsequently, the Commission ceased all
payments to the contractor and issued recovery orders for
amounts already paid to the contractor.

The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure to pay the
sum of EUR 448 947,78 is wrongful and has caused the
applicant additional loss. The applicant argues that the Commission has had the benefit of the services provided by the
applicant but has not paid anyone for such services. The
applicant claims that the Commission is obliged to pay the
applicantfor the services provided on the basis ofthe principles
of unjust enrichment, gestion d’affaires, legitimate expectation
and general principles of fault liability. In addition, the
applicant claims interest and damages for loss consequential
upon the Commission’s alleged illegal failure to pay the
applicant for the services.

**Action brought on 29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post**
**EURO EXPRESS GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-**
**ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-334/03)**

(2003/C 289/67)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS GmbH,
represented by Gabriele Lindhofer.