CELEX: C2000/259/50
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-170/00: Action brought on 22 June 2000 by Förde Reederei GmbH against the Council of the European Union and 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).
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 27 June 2000 by Jean-Pierre Pierard
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendants jointly and severally to pay compen-
      sation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result
      of the phasing out of the tax-free regime pursuant to                                       (Case T-172/00)
      Article 28 of Directive 92/12/EEC on 30 June 1999, on
      the basis that the applicant quantifies and limits the
                                                                                                  (2000/C 259/51)
      amount of the damages claimed to DM 1 000 000 plus
      annual interest at the rate of 8 % from the date of
      judgment;
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
—     order the defendants to pay to the applicant, pursuant to
      Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
      First Instance, the costs necessarily incurred in the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      proceedings.                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 June 2000 by Jean-Pierre Pie-
                                                                         rard, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Lombart and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.
By the present action, the applicant is claiming, on the basis of
an assigned right, compensation for the damage suffered by               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the undertaking Nordisk Faergefart A/S as a result of the fact
that, by adopting Directive 92/12/EEC (1), the Council brought           —     annul the decision of the appointing authority not to
to an end the tax-free sale of goods in intra-Community travel.                reinstate the applicant in his original service on 13 Octob-
Nordisk Faergefart operated ferry services between Denmark                     er 1999, despite his having officially requested this in a
and Germany until 30 June 1999. According to the applicant,                    note dated 26 April 1999;
it was compelled to discontinue those ferry services on 1 July
1999, since it was no longer possible, without tax-free sales            —     annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
on board its vessels, to make a profit. The applicant now
claims compensation for the loss of profit suffered by Nordisk           —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of
Faergefart as a result of the cessation of its business.                       compensation for non-material damage, the sum of
                                                                               6 200 euro together with statutory interest until payment
In support of its claim, the applicant maintains in particular                 in full;
that the directive infringes higher-ranking law, namely:
—     the Community principle of the rule of law, in that it             —     order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.
      contains contradictory and unclear rules;
—     the Treaty objective of the creation of an internal market,        Pleas in law and main arguments
      in accordance with Article 14 (ex Article 7a) EC;
—     the prohibition of customs duties or charges having                The applicant, who had been assigned to Directorate-General
      equivalent effect, in accordance with Article 25 (ex               IX — Personnel and Administration for the duration of the
      Article 12) EC;                                                    performance of his duties as representative of staff working
                                                                         outside the Community on the Central Staff Committee,
—     the prohibitions laid down in Article 28 (ex Article 30)           complains of the fact that he was not immediately re-assigned
      and Article 29 (ex Article 34) EC;                                 to his original post on the expiration of his term of office on
                                                                         18 May 1999.
—     Article 93 (ex Article 99) EC, permitting the harmonis-
      ation of indirect taxes;
                                                                         He maintains that the defendant failed to take that decision
—     the principle of proportionality, on account of the lack of        within a reasonable time, and that it:
      appropriateness to the internal market;
—     the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;        —     has disregarded Articles 1a, 36, 38(g) and 45 of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations of officials and the final paragraph of
—     a series of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the                 Article 1 of Annex II to those Regulations, as well as the
      freedom to exercise a trade or profession, the right to                  principle of equal treatment, the duty to have regard for
      property and free trade.                                                 the welfare and interests of officials and the principle of
                                                                               the protection of legitimate expectations; and
(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
    arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the          —     has prejudiced his career and caused him non-material
    holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992                 damage.
    L 76, p. 1).