CELEX: C2000/273/26
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-192/00: Action brought on 24 July 2000 by Sabrina Tesoka against the Commission of the European Communities

23.9.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 273/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 24 July 2000 by Sabrina Tesoka against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of 12 April 2000 by which the Council
      awarded to another company the contract for general
      installation and maintenance works forming the subject-                                    (Case T-192/00)
      matter of Notice 107865 published in Official Journal
      S 145 of 30 July 1999;
                                                                                                 (2000/C 273/26)
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay to
      Strabag, subject to increase, the sum of BEF 153 421 286
      or EUR 3 803 214 together with interest thereon at the
      rate of 6 % from 12 April 2000;
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
—     order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 24 July 2000 by Sabrina Tesoka,
                                                                         residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis
The applicant participated in the restricted tendering procedure         and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
relating to the installation and maintenance works to be
carried out in the Council’s buildings in Brussels.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its action for annulment, it maintains:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
—     that the contested decision is vitiated by the absence of a              COM/A/12/98 awarding her, in her oral test, a mark
      statement of reasons or, at the very least, by inadequate                lower than the minimum required and excluding her
      reasoning;                                                               from the reserve list;
—     that by attaching the greatest weight to the price criterion,
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      and by failing to consider the other criteria for the award
      of the contract as provided for in the tender specifications,
      the Council has infringed Articles 18 and 30 of Directi-
      ve 93/37/EEC (1);
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     that by awarding the contract to a company whose
      tender was not in conformity with the special tender
      specifications, the Council has infringed the terms of the
      latter document;                                                   In support of her application, the applicant pleads:
—     that by classifying three tenderers as being of equal merit        —     failure to comply with essential procedural requirements,
      with regard to the first criterion and, probably, another                violation of the principle of equal treatment and infringe-
      company and Strabag as being of equal merit with regard                  ment of the rules governing the functioning of selection
      to the fourth criterion, the Council committed manifest                  boards, in that the composition of the selection board
      errors of assessment.                                                    varied during the course of the oral testing of the various
                                                                               candidates; and
Lastly, the applicant claims compensation for the damage
which, it claims, results from the fact of its having been               —     non-compliance with the obligation to provide a state-
unfairly turned down as a tenderer for the contract in question.               ment of reasons, in that it is not possible to determine
                                                                               from the overall mark awarded for the oral test whether
                                                                               the selection board fulfilled its obligation to carry out an
                                                                               assessment of the points set out in the competition
(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the                 notice.
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works
    contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).