CELEX: C2000/259/49
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-169/00: Action brought on 20 June 2000 by SPRL Esedra against the Commission of the European Communities

9.9.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 259/27
Action brought on 20 June 2000 by SPRL Esedra against                    —     contrary to Article 99(h)(2) of the regulation laying down
       the Commission of the European Communities                              detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial
                                                                               Regulation (1), the Commission asked questions of the
                                                                               tenderers which went beyond a mere request for clarifi-
                         (Case T-169/00)                                       cation or the correction of obvious clerical errors con-
                                                                               tained in the tenders.
                         (2000/C 259/49)
                                                                         In addition, the applicant suggests that the Commission may
                                                                         have preferred not to award it the contract on account of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                        negative attitude adopted by the Parents’ Association, which
                                                                         would constitute a misuse of powers. It further criticises the
                                                                         Commission for having failed to have regard to the contract
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                documents and for having committed a manifest error of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               assessment with regard to the successful tenderer. The Com-
European Communities on 20 June 2000 by SPRL Esedra,                     mission’s assessment appears untenable, as regards the criteria
established in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,            of both price and quality.
Eric Gillet and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant complains that the defendant has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              failed to comply with its obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                         reasons, in that it has refused to provide sufficient information
—     annul the decision to award contract 99/52/IX.D.I to a             to enable the legality of the contested decisions to be assessed.
      group Italian companies represented by Centro Studi
      Antonio Manieri S.R.L.;
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant claims that the contract notice and
                                                                         contract documents have been disregarded, in that the figures
—     annul the decision not to award that contract to the               in respect of the turnover of the successful tenderer show that
      applicant;                                                         that undertaking is not financially capable of taking on the
                                                                         contract.
—     order the defendant to pay 1 001 574,09 euro by way of
      damages;
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                              9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-
                                                                             tation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of
                                                                             21 December 1977 (OJ 1993 L 315, p. 1).
Pleas in law and principal arguments
The applicant was entrusted, from 1995, with the management
of the ‘Clovis’ day nursery and kindergarten for children of the
staff of the European institutions. In 1999, the Commission
decided not to seek the renewal of the management contract
and to issue an invitation to tender in connection with the
running of the day nursery and kindergarten.                             Action brought on 22 June 2000 by Förde Reederei
                                                                         GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
The applicant contests the Commission’s decision to award
that contract to a group of Italian companies represented by
Centro Studi Antonio Manieri S.R.L. and the decision not to                                       (Case T-170/00)
accept its tender.
                                                                                                  (2000/C 259/50)
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads violation of the
principle of non-discrimination, for the following reasons:
                                                                                           (Language of the case: German)
—     the appraisal committee was not composed on an
      impartial basis, since it included representatives of the          An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      Parents’ Association, which, for illegitimate reasons, had         Commission of the European Communities was brought
      previously shown itself to be hostile to the applicant;            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 22 June 2000 by Förde Reederei GmbH, of Flensburg
—     the applicant was given a time-limit for the submission            (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Ulrich
      of its tender which was not the same as that granted to            Schrömbges and Lothar Harings, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs
      the other tenderers;                                               Graf von Westphalen Fritze & Modest, Hamburg (Germany).