CELEX: C2003/019/74
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-345/02: Action brought on 21 November 2002 by European Dynamics against the Commission of the European Communities

25.1.2003             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
By his application, the applicant seeks the annulment of the             1.     annul the Commission’s (EUROSTAT) decision to elimin-
decision of the appointing authority rejecting his complaint                    ate European Dynamics from the procurement procedure
requesting the annulment of the elections to the local staff                    for the Call for Tenders 2002/S 106-083279 - Lot 1 for
committee in Luxembourg of November 2001.                                       the ‘Further development of the Collaborative Software
                                                                                CIRCA’;
According to the applicant, the list put forward by the                  2.     order the Commission (EUROSTAT) to evaluate the
‘Solidarité Européenne’ union obtained only one of the 20                       tender submitted by European Dynamics in the above
seats to be filled on the local staff committee, whereas the                    mentioned procurement procedure and allow European
number of votes for the members of that union constituted                       Dynamics to participate fully and on the same basis as all
25,523 % of the total votes cast.                                               the other tenderers;
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:                      3.     order the Commission to pay European Dynamics’ legal
                                                                                and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with
—     infringement of Article 9(3) of the Staff Regulations,                    this application.
—     infringement of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff
      Regulations,
—     infringement of Article 6 of the rules on the composition          Pleas in law and main arguments
      and functioning of the staff committee,
—     manifest error of assessment.
                                                                         The applicant is a company involved in the area of information
                                                                         technology and communications. It participated in the Call for
                                                                         Tenders 2002/S 106 -083279, for ‘Eurostat information
The applicant claims that the abovementioned provisions                  systems: information and communication technologies for the
require a faithful representation, on the local staff committee,         Community statistical system’ and, more particularly, Lot 1 of
of all the tendencies expressed through the ballot box. Such             the Call for Tenders, ‘further development of the collaborative
representation is not sufficiently guaranteed where more than            software CIRCA’. The applicant’s tender was rejected by the
a quarter of the total votes cast by officials results in the            defendant because of the absence of details concerning the
appointment of only 1/20th of the members of the staff                   educational and professional qualifications in the curriculum
committee.                                                               vitae of at least one of the experts, in a team of 27 persons.
                                                                         In support of its application, the applicant submits that
                                                                         the decision to reject its tender breaches the principle of
                                                                         proportionality. The tender was rejected because of the
                                                                         absence of details in one curriculum vitae, whereas the tender
Action brought on 21 November 2002 by European                           requirements referred in broad and general terms to the
Dynamics against the Commission of the European Com-                     experience of the team, without any further specification.
                            munities
                        (Case T-345/02)                                  The applicant furthermore alleges that the contested decision
                                                                         is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. According to the
                                                                         applicant, the defendant failed to exercise its power to seek
                        (2003/C 19/74)                                   clarification on this matter and therefore breached its duty of
                                                                         care and the principle of good administration.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         The applicant also claims that by not seeking clarification and
                                                                         thereby eliminating the applicant’s tender, the defendant did
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                not respect the equal treatment of tenderers. According to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               the applicant, an evaluation committee does not enjoy an
European Communities on 21 November 2002 by European                     unfettered discretion to seek or not to seek clarification
Dynamics (Athens), represented by W. Knapp, Rechtsanwalt,                concerning an individual tender regardless of objective con-
and D. Spanou, Advocate.                                                 siderations and free from judicial supervision.
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/40                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
The applicant finally submits that the defendant committed               by Admira, by means of an exchange of shares. According to
serious procedural irregularities. More particularly, the defend-        the notification, following the successful completion of the
ant did not respect the principle of good administration, the            abovementioned operation, the resulting undertaking would
right of parties to be heard and the duty to state reasons for its       come under the joint control of Prisa and Groupe Canal+.
decisions.
                                                                         In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:
                                                                         —     lack of competence of the Commission, in that it is not
                                                                               empowered to refer a case to the authorities of a
                                                                               Member State when the markets concerned affect intra-
                                                                               Community trade and more than one Member State;
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A., Región de Murcia de Cable, S.A., Valencia de Cable,
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 9 of the abovementioned regu-
S.A., Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A., y Mediter-
                                                                               lation on concentrations in that the contested decision
ránea Norte Sistemas de Cable, S.A. against Commission
                                                                               makes a ‘blank’ reference to the national authorities;
                of the European Communities
                                                                         —     failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons,
                         (Case T-346/02)                                       specifically as regards the exceptional nature of the
                                                                               reference in cases in which the markets in question affect
                         (2003/C 19/75)                                        a substantial part of the common market.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                        (1 ) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A. (having its registered office in Aravaca, Madrid), Región
de Murcia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Murcia,        Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
Spain), Valencia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in         S.A.Unipersonal, Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Teleco-
Madrid), Mediterránea sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its            municaciones de Castilla y León, S.A., Euskaltel, S.A.,
registered office in Alicante, Spain) y Mediterránea Norte               Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Ovie-
Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Castellón,      do, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Uniper-
Spain), represented by Luis Felipe Castresana Sánchez and                sonal, R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., and
Gonzalo Samaniego Bordiu, lawyers.                                       Tenaria S.A. against Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                       munities
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (Case T-347/02)
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002
      referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite                                          (2003/C 19/76)
      Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the
      Kingdom of Spain pursuant to Article 9 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     order the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
                                                                         S.A.Unipersonal (having its registered office in Madrid), Retecal
                                                                         Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León,
The decision contested by the present application concerns the           S.A. (having its registered office in Boecilli, Valladolid, Spain),
notification, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC)          Euskaltel, S.A.(having its registered office in Zamudio-Bizkaia),
No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of                         Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal (registered in Avilés),
concentrations between undertakings ( 1), of a planned concen-           Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. Unipersonal (having its registered
tration by which Sogecable SA, controlled by Promotora de                office in Oviedo), Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Unipersonal (having
Informaciones S.A (Prisa) and Groupe Canal +S.A., the latter             its registered office in Gijón), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones
belonging to the Vivendi Universal group, signs an agreement             Galicia, S.A.(having its registered office in A Coruña, Spain)
with the Admira Media S.A. group, belonging to the Telefónica            and Tenaria S.A.(having its registered office in Cordovilla,
S.A group, with the aim of merging Sogecable and DTS                     Navarra, Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras,
Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A. (Vía Digital), controlled       Natalia Lacalle Mangas and José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyers.