CELEX: C1998/234/64
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 May 1998 by Patricia Boyes against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-81/98)

25.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/33
for officials and other agents on mission. Until April 1997,        Action brought on 25 May 1998 by Patricia Boyes against
those services (ticket issuing, hotel bookings and                        the Commission of the European Communities
associated services) were provided by four travel agencies,                               (Case T-81/98)
including the applicant. In 1997, before the expiry of the
contract, the Commission opened an initial procedure.                                      (98/C 234/64)
After receiving the tenders, the defendant decided to annul
that procedure.
                                                                                  (Language of the case: English)
On 20 March 1998, the Commission informed the
applicant of its intention not to award a new contract in           An action against the Commission of the European
respect of which a prior call for competition was made in           Communities was brought before the Court of First
view of the fact that various tenders' were irregular and          Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 1998
that it therefore intended to award the contract by means           by Patricia Boyes, represented by S. C. I. Ferdinand, J.
of negotiated procedure without prior publication of the            Tracey Kelly, J. Singh Sandhu and Becket Bedford, of
contract notice.                                                    Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill, Birmingham,
                                                                    B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
general principle of the protection of legitimate                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
expectations, infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty
and of Articles 11 and 12 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC
of 16 June 1992 (1), and misuse of powers as a result of            Ð annul the decision of the Commission in Case IV/
abuse of procedures.                                                    34.907/F3 Ð NAIL dated 5 March 1998;
The applicant claims in this regard that, so far as concerns        Ð declare that the Commission is required under
contracts, the general principle of the protection of                   Article 176 of the Treaty establishing the European
legitimate expectations requires any contracting body who               Community to take the necessary measures to comply
has made the award of a contract subject to a tender                    with the judgment to be delivered;
procedure to conclude the procedure, unless supervening
circumstances which were unforeseeable when the
contract notice was published cause the contracting                 Ð in application of Article 215 of that Treaty, order the
authority to lose interest in the contract. In the present              Commission to make good the damage caused by the
case, the defendant first of all suspended the tender                   Commission's decision dated 5 March 1995; and
procedure in order to alter the technical specifications in
the contract documents' and subsequently annulled it                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
because of substantial alterations to the specifications in
the contract notice'. However, despite the fact that the
contracting authority cannot effect any alterations to the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contract notice or, even less, to the contract documents
since that would constitute a serious breach of the
principle of non-discrimination, the Commission based               The applicant explains that in June 1991 she became the
itself on such grounds in order to annul the procedure.             tenant of The Britannia Inn in the village of Alcombe,
Moreover, the Commission never informed the applicant               Minehead, Somerset under a lease which had been granted
of the reasons for the annulment of the tender procedure.           to her by Inntrepreneur Estates Limited. The lease
                                                                    contained a beer-tie provision. On 17 July 1992
                                                                    Inntrepreneur notified, inter alia, the applicant's lease to
Secondly, the applicant claims that the derogations                 the Commission and applied for negative clearance, a
provided by Article 11 of the directive to the general              declaration that its standard lease fell within Regulation
system must be interpreted strictly in so far as they               (EEC) No 1984/83 (1) and/or retrospective individual
constitute an exception to the general rule provided for            exemption. On 30 July 1993 the Commission published
therein, and the contracting authority must show that the           an Article 19(3) Notice in relation to Inntrepreneur (Case
requisite requirements for their application have been              IV/34.387) (2) in which it stated that it had reached a
fulfilled, that is that an open or restricted procedure was         favourable conclusion and intended to grant retrospective
abandoned on the ground that the tenders submitted were             individual exemption. The applicant, together with
irregular or unacceptable. In any event, the contracting            numerous other tenants of Inntrepreneur, notified the
authority cannot alter the substantive conditions of the            Commission of their opposition to the proposed grant of
contract. The applicant claims that, nevertheless, in the           retrospective individual exemption. Subsequently, in
present case some of the offers submitted were valid and            October 1993, she submitted, separately, a formal
that, furthermore, the defendant reduced considerably the           complaint to the Commission in respect of Inntrepreneur
duration of the contract in question, from two years to             (Case IV/34.907/F3). Inntrepreneur withdrew its
seven months and to four months respectively for the two            application for exemption in October 1997 and on
successful tenderers.                                               5 March 1998 the Commission formally rejected the
                                                                    applicant's complaint for lack of Community interest on
(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                    the ground that her rights under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                    Treaty could be adequately safeguarded by the national
                                                                    courts.
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/34               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance           Action brought on 29 May 1998 by FeÂdeÂration
on the ground that in rejecting her complaint the                     Internationale de l'Automobile against the Commission of
Commission failed to properly investigate the question                                 the European Communities
whether her rights under Article 85 could be adequately                                      (Case T-85/98)
safeguarded by the national courts of the United Kingdom.
                                                                                              (98/C 234/66)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983
    on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to
    categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ L 173 of                       (Language of the case: English)
    30.6.1983, p. 5).
(2) OJ C 206 of 30.7.1993, p. 2.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1998
                                                                      by FeÂdeÂration Internationale de l'Automobile, represented
                                                                      by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Mark Hoskins, Craig
                                                                      Pouncey and Veronica Roberts, with an address for service
Action brought on 27 May 1998 by Frans Jacobs against                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden, 7
       the Commission of the European Communities                     Place du TheÂaÃtre.
                         (Case T-82/98)
                          (98/C 234/65)                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Ð declare the Commission decision adopted on or
                                                                          around 22 December 1997 to provide to members of
An action against the Commission of the European                          the press copies of the warning letters dated
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         19 December 1997 was unlawful and is therefore
Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 1998                       void; and
by Frans Jacobs, residing at Walshoutem (Belgium),
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq,
Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels              Ð make an order for nominal damages in the sum of one
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     hundred ECUs for non-pecuniary harm caused to the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange.                    applicant's reputation;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Ð order that the Commission must make good the
                                                                          pecuniary loss suffered by the applicant as a result of
Ð annul the Commission's decision not to promote the                      the Commission's unlawful acts, namely, the leaking
     applicant to grade B 4 in the 1997 promotions                        of the warning letters to the press and the statements
     procedure;                                                           made to the press by Mr Van Miert;
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Ð order that the Commission should pay interest at the
                                                                          annual rate of 8 % as from the date of judgment in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       these proceedings;
In support of his claim, the applicant maintains, first, that         Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
the contested decision is vitiated by the complete absence
of any statement of reasons, contrary to Article 25 of the
Staff Regulations of officials.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
He further states that, although he has been eligible for             The applicant in the present case (the FIA) is an
promotion since 1 May 1997, no staff report or any other              association declared in conformity with the French law of
report concerning his conduct, efficiency and ability has             1 July 1901 and enjoying consultative status at the
been drawn up as required by Article 43 of the Staff                  Council of Europe and at the United Nations. It is an
Regulations. The applicant considers that, in the absence             international federation of 143 national automobile clubs,
of such a report, the defendant was unable to make any                automobile associations, touring clubs and national
lawful assessment, on the same basis, of the comparative              federations for motoring and motor sport, representing
merits of the applicant and of those of his colleagues who            113 countries and over 100 million motorists. Through its
were eligible for promotion to grade B 4, and that the                Sports Division and its affiliated National Sporting
contested decision therefore disregards Article 45 of the             Authorities, the FIA lays down rules accepted throughout
Staff Regulations and the principles of equal treatment               the world as governing all categories of international
and non-discrimination.                                               motor sport for vehicles with four or more wheels. These
                                                                      rules are contained in the International Sporting Code. In
                                                                      addition, the FIA has an economic interest in certain