CELEX: 62008TJ0121
Language: en
Date: 2010-05-11 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2010.#PC-Ware Information Technologies BV v European Commission.#Public supply contracts - Community tendering procedure - Acquisition of software products and licences - Rejection of a tender - Abnormally low tender - Obligation to state reasons.#Case T-121/08.

Case T-121/08
      PC-Ware Information Technologies BV
      v
      European Commission
      (Public supply contracts – Community tendering procedure – Acquisition of software products and licences – Rejection of a tender – Abnormally low tender – Duty to state reasons)
      Summary of the Judgment
      1.      Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a decision that has been implemented
      (Art. 230 EC)
      2.      European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions
            – Judicial review – Limits
      3.      European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Abnormally low tender
      (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 139(1))
      4.      Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope
      (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2))
      5.      Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied
      (Art. 288, second para., EC)
      1.      For an applicant to retain during the proceedings an interest in the annulment of the contested measure, that annulment must
         be capable, in itself, of producing legal effects which may consist, in particular, in redressing any harmful consequences
         arising from that measure or in preventing future repetition of the alleged unlawfulness.
      
      Even if a public procurement contract has already been performed, where it is a framework contract likely to serve as a model
         for similar future procurement contracts, there is an interest in preventing the unlawfulness alleged by the tenderer from
         recurring in the future.
      
      (see paras 39-40)
      2.      The Community judicature has jurisdiction, in the context of annulment proceedings, to adjudicate in actions for lack of competence,
         infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application,
         or misuse of powers. It follows that the Community judicature cannot treat an alleged infringement of national legislation
         as a question of law for which unlimited judicial review is available. Review of that kind is a matter exclusively for the
         national courts. 
      
      Nevertheless, in accordance with the principles of sound administration and solidarity as between the institutions of the
         European Union and the Member States, the Community institutions are required to ensure that the conditions laid down in an
         invitation to tender do not induce potential tenderers to infringe the national legislation likely to be applicable to the
         contract concerned, as that question constitutes an assessment of facts.
      
      (see paras 62-63)
      3.      Under the provisions of Article 139(1) of Regulation No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the
         financial regulation, the contracting authority is obliged to allow the tenderer to clarify, or even explain, the characteristics
         of its tender before rejecting it, if it considers that a tender is abnormally low. The obligation to check the seriousness
         of a tender also arises where there are doubts beforehand as to its reliability, also bearing in mind that the main purpose
         of that article is to enable a tenderer not to be excluded from the procedure without having had an opportunity to explain
         the terms of its tender which appears abnormally low.
      
      (see para. 72)
      4.      The duty to give reasons depends on the type of measure at issue and the context in which it was adopted. The statement of
         reasons must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution in such a way, first, as
         to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights and to verify
         whether or not the decision is well founded and, secondly, to permit the Court to exercise its power to review the lawfulness
         of the measure.
      
      In the field of public procurement, in accordance with Article 100(2) of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the financial regulation
         applicable to the general budget of the European Communities and Article 149(2) of Regulation No 2342/2002 laying down detailed
         rules for the implementation of the financial regulation, the contracting authority must notify the tenderer of the grounds
         for the rejection of its tender and furthermore, where it has put in an admissible tender, of the characteristics and relative
         advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the successful tenderer, within no more than 15 calendar days from receipt
         of a request in writing. Since that manner of proceeding, as described in Article 100(2) aforesaid, discloses the reasoning
         followed by the authority which adopted the measure in a clear and unequivocal fashion, it satisfies the purpose of the duty
         to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC.
      
      (see paras 92-94)
      5.      In order for the Community to incur non‑contractual liability within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC
         on account of the unlawful conduct of its institutions, a number of requirements must be satisfied, namely that the alleged
         conduct of the institutions is unlawful, that the damage is real and that there is a causal link between the conduct alleged
         and the damage in question. Since those three conditions for the incurring of liability are cumulative, failure to meet one
         of them is sufficient for an action for damages to be dismissed, without it therefore being necessary to examine the other
         conditions.
      
      (see paras 105-106)
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
      11 May 2010(*)
      
      (Public supply contracts – Community tendering procedure – Acquisition of software products and licences – Rejection of a tender – Abnormally low tender – Obligation to state reasons)
      In Case T‑121/08,
      PC-Ware Information Technologies BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by L. Devillé and B. Maerevoet, lawyers,
      
      applicant,
      v
      European Commission, represented by E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, and P. Wytinck, lawyer,
      
      defendant,
      APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2008 rejecting the tender submitted by
         the applicant in public procurement procedure DIGIT/R2/PO/2007/022 and, in the alternative, for compensation for the loss
         allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s conduct,
      
      THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),
      composed of I. Pelikánová, President, K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur) and S. Soldevila Fragoso, Judges,
      Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator,
      having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 7 July 2009,
      gives the following
      Judgment
       Legal context
      A –  Community legislation
      1        The award of public supply contracts of the European Commission is subject to the provisions of Title V of Part One of Council
         Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the
         European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1, ‘the financial regulation’) and the provisions of Title V of Part One of Commission
         Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the financial
         regulation (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1; ‘the implementing rules’), in the versions applicable to the facts of the case.
      
      2        Article 100 of the financial regulation provides:
      
      ‘1. The authorising officer shall decide to whom the contract is to be awarded, in compliance with the selection and award
         criteria laid down in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders and the procurement rules.
      
      2. The contracting authority shall notify all candidates or tenderers whose applications or tenders are rejected of the grounds
         on which the decision was taken, and all tenderers whose tenders are admissible and who make a request in writing of the characteristics
         and relative advantages of the successful tender and the name of the tenderer to whom the contract is awarded.
      
      However, certain details need not be disclosed where disclosure would hinder application of the law, would be contrary to
         the public interest or would harm the legitimate business interests of public or private undertakings or could distort fair
         competition between those undertakings.’
      
      3        Article 130(1) and (3) of the implementing rules provides:
      
      ‘1. The documents relating to the invitation to tender shall include at least:
      … 
      (b) the attached specification … ;
      … 
      3. The specifications shall at least:
      … 
      (c) set out the technical specifications … ;
      … .’
      4        Article 139(1) of the implementing rules states:
      
      ‘If, for a given contract, tenders appear to be abnormally low, the contracting authority shall, before rejecting such tenders
         on that ground alone, request in writing details of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers relevant and
         shall verify those constituent elements, after due hearing of the parties, taking account of the explanations received. These
         details may relate in particular to compliance with the provisions relating to employment protection and working conditions
         in force at the place where the work, service or supply is to be performed.
      
      The contracting authority may, in particular, take into consideration explanations relating to:
      (a) the economics of the manufacturing process, of the provision of services or of the construction method;
      (b) the technical solutions chosen or the exceptionally favourable conditions available to the tenderer;
      (c) the originality of the tender.’
      5        Article 146(4) of the implementing rules provides:
      
      ‘In the case of abnormally low tenders as referred to in Article 139 of this Regulation, the evaluation committee shall request
         any relevant information concerning the composition of the tender.’
      
      6        Article 149 of the implementing rules provides:
      
      ‘(1) The contracting authorities shall as soon as possible inform candidates and tenderers of decisions reached concerning
         the award of the contract or framework contract or admission to a dynamic purchasing system, including the grounds for any
         decision not to award a contract or framework contract, or set up a dynamic purchasing system, for which there has been competitive
         tendering or to recommence the procedure.
      
      (2) The contracting authority shall, within not more than fifteen calendar days from the date on which a written request is
         received, communicate the information provided for in Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation.
      
      (3) In the case of contracts awarded by the Community institutions on their own account, with a value equal to or more than
         the thresholds set in Article 158 and which are not excluded from the scope of Directive 2004/18/EC, the contracting authority
         shall inform all unsuccessful tenderers or candidates, simultaneously and individually, by mail, fax or e-mail, that their
         application or tender has not been accepted, at either of the following stages:
      
      (a)      shortly after decisions have been taken on the basis of exclusion and selection criteria and before the award decision, in
         procurement procedures organised in two separate stages;
      
      (b)      as regards the award decisions and decisions to reject offers, as soon as possible after the award decision and within the
         following week at the latest.
      
      In each case, the contracting authority shall indicate the reasons why the tender or application has not been accepted and
         the available legal remedies.
      
      The contracting authority shall, at the same time as the unsuccessful candidates or tenderers are informed that their tenders
         or applications have not been accepted, inform the successful tenderer of the award decision, specifying that the decision
         notified does not constitute a commitment on the part of the contracting authority.
      
      Unsuccessful tenderers or candidates may request additional information about the reasons for their rejection in writing by
         mail, fax or email, and all tenderers who have put in an admissible tender may obtain information about the characteristics
         and relative merits of the tender accepted and the name of the successful tenderer, without prejudice to the second subparagraph
         of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation. The contracting authority shall reply within no more than fifteen calendar
         days from receipt of the request.’
      
      7        Paragraph 3.3 of the technical specifications relating to call for tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2007/022, entitled ‘Large Account Reseller
         Microsoft Products (LAR 2007)’ and published by the Commission in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2007 S 183; ‘the call for tenders’), provides:
      
      ‘By the way of derogation from the Guidebook “Submitting an offer in response to a call for tenders issued by the Directorate-General
         Informatics” the contract resulting from the present call for tenders will be governed by the law of the European Communities
         complemented by the Belgian law, where the Community law does not regulate the specific legal issue.’
      
      8        Paragraph 1.1.1 of the Guidebook ‘Submitting an offer in response to a call for tenders issued by the Directorate-General
         Informatics’ states:
      
      ‘The procurement procedure for the EU institutions, agencies and other bodies, is governed by the following provisions, more
         particularly:
      
      (1)       Part 1, Title [V] of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable
         to the general budget of the European Communities, as last amended 
      
      (2)       Part 1, Title [V] of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the
         implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to
         the general budget of the European Communities, as last amended 
      
      (3)       The World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Government Procurement, which the European Community joined following Council
         Decision of 16 November 1987 concerning the conclusion of the Protocol amending the GATT Agreement on Government Procurement.’
      
      B –  National legislation
      9        Article 40 of the Law of 14 July 1991 on trade practices and consumer information and protection (Moniteur belge, 29 August 1991, p. 18712; ‘the Belgian law on trade practices’) provides:
      
      ‘Traders shall be prohibited from offering a product for sale or selling a product at a loss.
      A sale shall be considered to have been made at a loss if the price is not at least equal to the price at which the product
         was invoiced at the time of supply or at which it would be invoiced if it were resupplied.
      
      … .’
       Facts of the dispute
      10      On 30 March 2007, the Commission published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ S 63) a prior information notice concerning the award of a contract entitled ‘Large account reseller Microsoft products
         (LAR 2007)’ – in order to establish a framework agreement creating a single point of purchase for the acquisition of software
         products and licences from the supplier Microsoft (‘the supplier’) by the Commission and the other European institutions,
         under the reference DIGIT/R2/PO/2007/022.
      
      11      By letter of 21 September 2007, the applicant, PC-Ware Information Technologies BV, received a copy of the technical specifications
         relating to that contract.
      
      12      On 22 September 2007, the Commission published the call for tenders.
      
      13      On 2 November 2007, the applicant sent its tender to the Commission. In accordance in particular with Article 40 of the Belgian
         law on trade practices, which prohibits sales at a loss, that tender stated that the discount granted by the applicant on
         the price of the supplier’s goods and licences in the context of the contract at issue was 17.7%.
      
      14      By letter of 3 December 2007, the Commission requested the successful tenderer to confirm that its tender complied with the
         relevant legislation and, in particular, that it did not sell at a loss. By letter of 4 December 2007, the successful tenderer
         confirmed that requirement.
      
      15      On 10 January 2008, the Commission took the decision to award the contract at issue to the successful tenderer.
      
      16      By letter of 11 January 2008, the Commission informed the applicant of its decision to reject its tender, on the ground that,
         based on the application of the contract award formula, it did not offer the best price/quality ratio. That letter stated
         also that the applicant could request further information.
      
      17      By e-mail of 16 January 2008, followed by a reminder of 18 January 2008, the applicant requested the Commission to hold an
         evaluation meeting, specifying specifically that the aim of that meeting was to obtain an overview of the advantages and disadvantages
         of its tender compared with the successful tender, so as better to understand the result of the evaluation.
      
      18      Following that request, the Commission organised a debriefing meeting with the applicant’s representatives, which took place
         on 28 January 2008.
      
      19      By letter of 29 January 2008, the Commission informed the applicant of the name of the tenderer to which the contract at issue
         had been awarded and communicated a report of the evaluation meeting, in which it was stated in particular that the price
         offered by the successful tenderer amounted to 81.75% of the price of the goods concerned for the contract at issue, that
         is to say a discount of 18.25%. That letter also stated that the contract had been awarded to the successful tenderer on the
         ground that it offered the best price/quality ratio.
      
      20      On 21 February 2008, the Commission concluded a contract with the successful tenderer, reference No DI 06270 00.
      
      21      On 15 March 2008, the Commission published the notice of award of that contract in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ S 53).
      
       Procedure and forms of order sought
      22      By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 10 March 2008, the applicant brought the present action.
      
      23      At the hearing on 7 July 2009, the parties presented oral argument and replied to the questions put by the Court.
      
      24      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
      –        declare the action admissible;
      –        annul the Commission’s decision, communicated by letter of 11 January 2008, to reject the applicant’s tender in response to
         call for tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2007/022 – LAR 2007 and to award the contract to the successful tenderer;
      
      –        declare that the Commission’s unlawful action constitutes fault giving rise to the Commission’s liability;
      –        in the alternative, if the contract has already been carried out when the Court gives judgment, or the decision can no longer
         be declared void, order the Commission to pay damages of EUR 654 962.38 as compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant
         in regard to that procedure;
      
      –        order the Commission to pay the costs.
      25      The Commission contends that the Court should:
      
      –        declare the action for annulment entirely inadmissible or at least unfounded;
      –        declare the application for damages inadmissible or at least unfounded;
      –        order the applicant to pay the costs.
       Law
      A –  The application for annulment
      26      By its second head of claim set out in paragraph 24 above, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision, communicated
         by letter of 11 January 2008, to reject its tender and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.
      
      27      However, as is apparent from paragraph 16 above, by the letter of 11 January 2008, the Commission simply informed the applicant
         of its decision to reject its tender, on the ground that, based on the application of the contract award formula, it did not
         offer the best price/quality ratio. Therefore, the Court considers that that letter cannot be interpreted as containing, in
         itself, a decision to award the contract to the successful tenderer. In the present case, as stated in paragraph 15 above,
         the decision to award the contract was taken on 10 January 2008.
      
      28      It follows from the case-law, however, that an application for annulment of a decision to award a contract to a tenderer and
         an application for annulment of a decision to reject another tender for the same contract are closely connected (see, to that
         effect, Case T-195/05 Deloitte Business Advisory v Commission [2007] ECR II‑871, paragraph 113).
      
      29      It must therefore be held that the contested decision in the present action means both the decision to reject and the decision
         to award the contract.
      
      1.     Admissibility of the application for annulment
      30      Without formally raising an objection of inadmissibility, the Commission contends that the application for annulment is inadmissible,
         first, on the ground that the applicant has no interest in bringing proceedings and, secondly, as being devoid of purpose.
      
      a)     The applicant’s lack of interest in bringing proceedings
       Arguments of the parties
      31      The Commission considers that the application for annulment must be dismissed on the ground of lack of interest in bringing
         proceedings. If the argument put forward by the applicant in support of its application, according to which the successful
         tender for the contract at issue infringes Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices which prohibits sales at a loss,
         were accepted, it would follow that the tender submitted by the applicant would also infringe Article 40 of the Belgian law
         on trade practices. The applicant acknowledges itself that it sold the goods without any profit margin, which, according to
         Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices, should also be considered as a sale at a loss. It follows that not only
         is there no possibility of its tender being accepted, but, moreover, the applicant cannot even claim damages, because the
         Commission’s allegedly unlawful conduct did not cause it any loss.
      
      32      The applicant claims that the Commission's opinion relating to inadmissibility for lack of interest in bringing proceedings
         is of a substantive nature, so that it is not relevant to the question of the admissibility of the application.
      
       Findings of the Court
      33      It is settled case-law that an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only in so far as that
         person has an interest in the annulment of the contested measure. Such an interest presupposes that the annulment of the measure
         must of itself be capable of having legal consequences and that the action must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage
         for the party who brought it (see the Order in Case T-387/04 EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission [2007] ECR II-1195, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited).
      
      34      The Commission’s argument relating to the applicant’s lack of interest in bringing proceedings is based on the premise that
         Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices is applicable to the present case. It is expressly apparent from the Commission’s
         pleadings that it is only to the extent that the Court must consider that the successful tender is inconsistent with Article
         40 of the Belgian law on trade practices that the applicant would have no interest in bringing proceedings.
      
      35      However, the Court notes that it is apparent from the Commission’s written pleadings concerning the second plea that it disputes
         the application, in the present case, of that provision. Therefore, as the applicant submits, the question of the application
         of Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices should be considered to relate to the examination of the substance of
         the application for annulment.
      
      36      Therefore, in the absence of relevant arguments put forward by the Commission in support of its claims that the applicant
         has no interest in bringing proceedings, the plea of inadmissibility must be rejected.
      
      b)     Plea that the application for annulment is devoid of purpose
       Arguments of the parties
      37      The Commission considers that the applicant now claims only damages and that its main application for annulment has become
         devoid of purpose. The contract has already been partially performed, which, in the light of the applicant’s claims, has the
         consequence that, in respect of the present application, it has withdrawn its application for annulment and replaced it with
         a claim for damages.
      
      38      The applicant disputes the Commission’s arguments and claims that it retains an interest in the annulment of the contested
         decision.
      
       Findings of the Court
      39      According to the case-law, for an applicant to retain during the proceedings an interest in the annulment of the contested
         measure, that annulment must be capable, in itself, of producing legal effects which may consist, in particular, in redressing
         any harmful consequences arising from that measure or in preventing future repetition of the alleged illegality (see, to that
         effect, Case 207/86 Apesco v Commission [1988] ECR 2151, paragraph 16; Case T-102/96 Gencor v Commission [1999] ECR II-753, paragraph 41; and order of 5 December 2007 in Case T-133/03 Schering-Plough v Commission and EMEA, not published in the ECR, paragraph 31).
      
      40      In the present case, concerning a framework contract of a kind likely to serve as a model for similar future procurement contracts,
         there is an interest in preventing the unlawfulness alleged by the applicant from recurring in the future. Therefore, the
         Commission is wrong to maintain that the application for annulment is devoid of purpose.
      
      41      In the light of the conclusions drawn in paragraphs 36 and 40 of this judgment, the present application for annulment must
         be declared admissible.
      
      2.     Substance
      42      In support of its application for annulment of the contested decision, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law alleging,
         first, an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and, secondly, infringement of the provisions of Article 55 of Directive
         2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award
         of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114), and of Articles 139(1)
         and 146(4) of the implementing rules, read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices,
         which prohibits sales at a loss.
      
      43      It is appropriate, in order to delimit the purpose of the present application, to start by examining whether the second plea
         is well founded.
      
      a)     The second plea, alleging infringement of Article 55 of Directive 2004/18 and Articles 139(1) and 146(4) of the implementing
         rules, read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices
      
       Arguments of the parties
      44      First, the applicant claims that it expressly drew the Commission’s attention, when submitting its tender, to the fact that
         it offered, in the context of the procedure for the award of the contract at issue, the highest possible percentage discount,
         namely 17.7%. That maximum percentage discount was valid for all the offers relating to the award of the contract at issue,
         including that of the successful tenderer. In support of that assertion, the applicant relies on a letter of 29 October 2007
         sent to it by the supplier, included in its tender of 2 November 2007 (‘the supplier’s letter’). The applicant claims moreover
         that that assertion is reinforced by the fact that three other tenderers lodged tenders containing a discount of 17.7%, of
         which the Commission was aware.
      
      45      However, it points out that it is apparent from the documents before the Court that the successful tender included an offer
         of a discount of 18.25%, a discount which was greater than that granted by the supplier to all the dealers. According to the
         applicant, such a discount is therefore inconsistent with Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices, which prohibits
         sales at a loss and, pursuant to paragraph 3.3 of the technical specifications, is applicable in the present case. Therefore,
         because of the level of that discount offered by the successful tenderer, its tender constitutes an abnormally low tender
         within the meaning of Articles 139(1) and 146(4) of the implementing rules.
      
      46      In conclusion, the applicant claims that, by choosing the successful tender although it constituted an abnormally low tender,
         the Commission infringed Article 55 of Directive 2004/18 and Articles 139(1) and 146(4) of the implementing rules. The applicant
         is of the opinion that such a tender should have been immediately rejected by the Commission.
      
      47      Secondly, since the Commission did not verify, despite the information communicated by the applicant, whether the successful
         tender contravened the prohibition on sales at a loss, it infringed the principle of good administration on the ground that
         it did not examine carefully and impartially all the relevant factors.
      
      48      Thirdly, the applicant notes that the lawfulness of the contract concluded by the Commission with the successful tenderer
         could be challenged before the Belgian courts by any interested party pursuant to Articles 95 and 98 of the Belgian law on
         trade practices or Articles 6 and 1133 of the Belgian Civil Code.
      
      49      The Commission disputes the applicant’s arguments and contends that the second plea should be dismissed as unfounded.
      
       Findings of the Court
      –       The branches of the second plea alleging infringement of a directive and the Belgian legislation
      50      First, it must be pointed out immediately that the second plea, in particular, alleges infringement of Article 55 of Directive
         2004/18. However, Directive 2004/18 is addressed to the Member States to which it applies and, therefore, does not apply to
         public contracts awarded, as in the present case, by a Community institution. This branch of the second plea must therefore
         be dismissed as inoperative.
      
      51      Secondly it is apparent from the applicant’s pleadings that the second plea relates, in essence, to an infringement of the
         provisions of Community law applicable to abnormally low tenders, namely Articles 139(1) and 146(4) of the implementing rules,
         and that it is in connection with those provisions of Community law that the applicant refers to Article 40 of the Belgian
         law on trade practices.
      
      52      In the first plea, the applicant explicitly complains that the Commission infringed those articles of the implementing rules.
      
      53      In the second plea, the Court notes that the applicant equates sales at a loss, within the meaning of Article 40 of the Belgian
         law on trade practices, with abnormally low tenders, and that in two ways. It claims that the successful tender constitutes
         both a sale at a loss and an abnormally low tender, because it offered a discount of an amount greater than the discount granted
         by the supplier. It also considers that the successful tender, both as an abnormally low tender and as a sale at a loss, should
         have been immediately excluded from the award procedure at issue, in accordance with the provisions of Article 139(1) of the
         implementing rules.
      
      54      Thirdly, it should be noted, as is apparent from Article 100(1) of the financial regulation, that the selection of the tenderer
         to whom the contract is to be awarded must be made in compliance, both, with the selection and award criteria and with the
         procurement rules. It is also apparent from that article that the selection and award criteria are laid down in advance in
         the documents relating to the call for tenders.
      
      55      Now, as noted in paragraph 1 above, the award of public supply contracts of the Commission is subject solely to the provisions
         of Title V of Part One of the financial regulation and to Title V of Part One of the implementing rules.
      
      56      Moreover, Articles 139(1) and 146(4) of the implementing rules, which the applicant alleges in its second plea to have been
         infringed, are in Section 3, entitled ‘Procurement procedures’, of Chapter 1 of Title V of Part One of the implementing rules.
      
      57      Consequently, first, the provisions of Articles 139(1) and 146(4) of the implementing rules constitute procurement rules within
         the meaning of Article 100(1) of the financial regulation. Therefore, it must be considered, in essence, that the second plea
         alleges an infringement of the procurement rules.
      
      58      Secondly, the Court notes that, as is apparent from paragraph 45 above, in order to support its assertion that Article 40
         of the Belgian law on trade practices applies in the present case, the applicant relies on paragraph 3.3 of the technical
         specifications.
      
      59      In accordance with Article 130(1)(b) and (3)(c) of the implementing rules, the technical specifications are one of the elements
         of the specifications, which in turn are a document relating to the invitation to tender.
      
      60      Therefore, in view of the conclusion reached in paragraph 57 above that the second plea raised in support of the application
         for annulment of the contested decision alleges, in essence, an infringement of a procurement rule within the meaning of Article
         100(1) of the financial regulation, the applicant is wrong to rely on a provision of the technical specifications of the call
         for tenders at issue, which does not constitute a procurement rule, in order to maintain that Article 40 of the Belgian law
         on trade practices applies in the present case.
      
      61      For the sake of completeness, it should be stated that, even assuming the applicant had alleged an autonomous infringement
         of Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices, such a complaint could not be upheld.
      
      62      The Court has jurisdiction, in the context of annulment proceedings, to adjudicate in actions for lack of competence, infringement
         of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or
         misuse of powers. It follows that the Court cannot treat the alleged infringement of Belgian legislation as a question of
         law for which unlimited judicial review is available. Review of that kind is a matter exclusively for the Belgian authorities
         (see, to that effect, Case T-139/99 AICS v Parliament [2000] ECR II-2849, paragraph 40).
      
      63      Nevertheless, in accordance with the principles of sound administration and solidarity as between the institutions of the
         European Union and the Member States, the Commission was required to ensure that the conditions laid down in the present invitation
         to tender did not induce potential tenderers to infringe the Belgian legislation likely to be applicable to the contract at
         issue in the present case (see, by analogy, Case T-139/99 AICS v Parliament, cited in paragraph 62 above, paragraph 41, and Case T-365/00 AICS v Parliament [2002] ECR II-2719, paragraph 63), as that question constitutes an assessment of facts (Case T-365/00 AICS v Parliament, paragraph 63).
      
      64      In the present case, the Court notes that, following the applicant’s letter of 2 November 2007, in which the applicant drew
         the Commission’s attention to the fact that its offer was consistent with the provisions of Article 40 of the Belgian law
         on trade practices, the Commission requested the successful tenderer, by letter of 3 December 2007, to confirm that its tender
         complied with the applicable legislation and, in particular, that it was not selling at a loss, which the successful tenderer
         confirmed by letter of 4 December 2007. By so doing, the Commission was careful not to encourage the successful tenderer to
         infringe the Belgian legislation likely to apply to the contract at issue in the present case.
      
      65      Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant has not shown that the successful tender clearly or necessarily
         involved an infringement of Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices. The applicant merely assumes that the successful
         tenderer had enjoyed a discount identical to its own and relies solely on the supplier’s letter in order to maintain that
         the successful tender constituted a sale at a loss within the meaning of Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices.
         According to the applicant, it is apparent from that letter that the maximum percentage discount granted by the supplier to
         all of the dealers, including the successful tenderer, in the context of the tendering procedure at issue was 17.7%.
      
      66      However, it cannot be inferred from the supplier’s letter that that discount offered by the applicant in its tender was valid
         for all the supplier’s dealers.
      
      67      The following is stated in the only two paragraphs of that letter:
      
      ‘We hereby confirm that with regards to the [abovementioned] in the subject mentioned Call for Tenders, your LAR discount
         for the Custom Enterprise Agreement Subscription is 17.7%. 
      
      The LAR discount you receive for the Select Agreement is mentioned in the Microsoft Select pricelist.’
      68      It is apparent from the wording of the supplier’s letter, which was sent only to the applicant, that the author thereof clearly
         indicated the amount of the discount which could be claimed only by the applicant. In the absence of further information,
         that presentation therefore does not allow it to be concluded, as the applicant claims, that the discount indicated was that
         granted to all of the dealers.
      
      69      Moreover, it should be noted that the applicant’s claim that other dealers lodged tenders with the Commission containing a
         discount of 17.7% is merely conjecture which is not supported by any evidence.
      
      70      In those circumstances, assuming that Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices is applicable in the present case,
         the applicant has not shown that the Commission made an obvious error in its assessment of the lawfulness of the successful
         tender in the light of the provisions of that article.
      
      –       The branch of the second plea alleging infringement of the implementing rules
      71      It is necessary to examine, in the light of the information in its possession concerning the abnormally low nature of the
         successful tender, whether, as the applicant claims, the Commission erred by not immediately excluding that tender on the
         basis of Articles 139(1) and 146(4) of the implementing rules.
      
      72      In that regard, under the provisions of Article 139(1) of the detailed implementing rules, the contracting authority is obliged
         to allow the tenderer to clarify, or even explain, the characteristics of its tender before rejecting it, if it considers
         that a tender is abnormally low. The obligation to check the seriousness of a tender also arises where there are doubts beforehand
         as to its reliability, also bearing in mind that the main purpose of that article is to enable a tenderer not to be excluded
         from the procedure without having had an opportunity to explain the terms of its tender which appears abnormally low (Case
         T-148/04 TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium v Commission [2005] ECR II-2627, paragraph 49).
      
      73      It should also be recalled that the Commission enjoys a broad margin of assessment with regard to the factors to be taken
         into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender, and that review by the Court
         is limited to checking compliance with the procedural rules and the duty to give reasons, the correctness of the facts found
         and that there is no manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers (see TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium v Commission, cited in paragraph 72 above, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
      
      74      In the present case, the only information which the applicant relies on to claim that the successful tender was abnormally
         low is once again the supplier’s letter. In that respect, the applicant claims that the maximum percentage of discount would
         have been valid for all the tenders relating to the award of the contract at issue, including that of the successful tenderer.
      
      75      However, in the light of the findings of the Court set out in paragraphs 65 to 68 above, that claim is clearly not supported
         by the wording of the supplier’s letter.
      
      76      Therefore, in view of the broad margin of assessment enjoyed by the Commission with regard to the factors to be taken into
         account in the context of the procedure for awarding a contract following an invitation to tender, the applicant is wrong
         to criticise the Commission for not finding that the successful tender was abnormally low and consequently not excluding it
         as such, under Article 139(1) of the implementing rules.
      
      77      That finding cannot be altered in the light of the following two arguments also raised by the applicant in support of the
         second plea.
      
      78      First, concerning the argument raised by the applicant with regard to the infringement of the principle of sound administration,
         which is said to follow from the Commission’s infringement of its obligation to undertake a careful and impartial examination
         of all the relevant elements of the present case and, more precisely, from the failure to reject the successful tender as
         an abnormally low tender, it suffices to note that, notwithstanding the fact that the Commission did not classify that tender
         as abnormally low, it demonstrated diligence in the examination of the successful tender. As the Court pointed out in paragraph
         64 above, in its letter of 3 December 2007, the Commission requested the successful tenderer to confirm that its tender complied
         with the applicable legislation and, in particular, that it was not selling at a loss. Therefore, in the absence of other
         factors raised by the applicant in support of the argument alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration
         with regard to the examination of the successful tender, that argument must be rejected as unfounded.
      
      79      Secondly, concerning the applicant’s argument relating to the possibility of challenging the validity of the contract concluded
         between the Commission and the successful tenderer before the Belgian courts, it should be noted that it does not concern
         the lawfulness of the contested decision, taken in the context of the procurement procedure at issue, but rather the lawfulness
         of the resulting contract. It follows that that argument must be rejected.
      
      80      It follows from all the above considerations that the second plea must be rejected.
      
      b)     The first plea, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons
       Arguments of the parties
      81      The applicant claims that the contested decision lacks a proper statement of reasons, both with regard to form and substance.
      
      82      First, the applicant points out that it expressly drew the Commission’s attention, first, to the application of Article 40
         of the Belgian law on trade practices to the tendering procedure at issue and, secondly, to the fact that, in its tender,
         it offered the highest possible level of discount given the prohibition on sales at a loss provided for by that article. However,
         notwithstanding the Commission’s obligation to undertake a careful and impartial examination of all the relevant elements
         of the case, neither the contested decision nor the minutes of the debriefing meeting contained reasons concerning that relevant
         fact, and it is also not apparent from them that the Commission took that fact into account. Therefore, the reasoning for
         the contested decision was too narrow or too vague or unclear. The Commission therefore infringed the general obligation to
         state reasons and Article 18 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, approved by resolution of the European
         Parliament of 6 September 2001 (OJ 2002 C 72 E, p. 331) (‘the code of good behaviour’).
      
      83      Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to comply with its obligation under Article 18(2) of the code of
         good behaviour to state individually the grounds of the contested decision with regard to the application of Article 40 of
         the Belgian law on trade practices.
      
      84      Thirdly, it is not apparent from the statement of reasons in the contested decision that the principle of equal treatment,
         as referred to in Article 5 of the code of good behaviour, was in fact complied with by the Commission concerning the application
         of Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices. The statement of reasons was therefore fundamentally insufficient.
      
      85      Fourthly, the statement of reasons in the contested decision does not allow it to be ascertained and monitored, in accordance
         with Article 4 of the code of good behaviour, whether the legislation applicable in the present case, namely Community law
         supplemented by Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices, was in fact applied and complied with.
      
      86      The Commission disputes the applicant’s arguments and contends that the plea should be rejected as unfounded.
      
       Findings of the Court
      87      First, in support of the first plea alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the applicant raises, in essence,
         four arguments alleging that the contested decision does not include, first, a statement of reasons with regard to the prohibition
         on sales at a loss which follows from Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices, secondly, separate reasons with regard
         to Article 40 of that law, thirdly, information which could show that the principle of equal treatment was in fact complied
         with concerning the application of Article 40 and, fourthly, information allowing it to be ascertained and monitored whether
         the Community legislation, supplemented by Article 40 of the Belgian law, was indeed applied and complied with.
      
      88      In the light of the Court’s conclusion in paragraph 60 above, Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices does not apply
         to the tendering procedure at issue, the applicant’s four arguments must be rejected at the outset, inasmuch as they seek
         to show that the contested decision infringes the obligation to state reasons with regard to Article 40 of the Belgian law.
      
      89      Secondly, the applicant refers to infringement of Article 18 of the code of good behaviour and infringement of the general
         obligation to state reasons.
      
      90      According to the case-law, the code of good behaviour is not a legal provision but a resolution of the Parliament amending
         a draft which had been submitted to it by the European Ombudsman and calling on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal
         in that respect (order of 24 April 2007 in Case T-132/06 Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament, not published in the ECR, paragraph 73). Therefore, that code is not a measure binding on the Commission and the applicant
         cannot claim any rights on the basis of it.
      
      91      However, although the applicant does not refer expressly to Article 253 EC, it is apparent from the application that the applicant
         intended to invoke, in essence, the general duty to give reasons laid down in that article.
      
      92      With regard to the question whether the contested decision is consistent with the general duty to give reasons, pursuant to
         Article 253 EC, it should first of all be noted that, according to established case-law, the duty to give reasons depends
         on the type of document at issue and on the context in which it was adopted. The statement of reasons must disclose in a clear
         and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution in such a way, firstly, as to make the persons concerned
         aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights and to verify whether or not the decision
         is well founded and, secondly, to permit the Court to exercise its power to review the lawfulness of the measure (Case C-350/88
         Delacre and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I‑395, paragraphs 15 and 16; Case T-217/01 Forum des migrants v Commission [2003] ECR II‑1563, paragraph 68; and Deloitte Business Advisory v Commission, cited in paragraph 28 above, paragraph 45).
      
      93      Next, in accordance with Article 100(2) of the financial regulation and Article 149(2) of the implementing rules, in this
         case the Commission had to communicate to the applicant the grounds for the rejection of its tender and furthermore, as the
         applicant had put in an admissible tender, information about the characteristics and relative merits of the tender accepted
         and the name of the successful tenderer, within no more than 15 calendar days from receipt of the request.
      
      94      It is settled case-law that, since that manner of proceeding, as described in Article 100(2) of the financial regulation,
         discloses the reasoning followed by the authority which adopted the measure in a clear and unequivocal fashion, it satisfies
         the purpose of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC, as noted in paragraph 92 above (judgment of 12 July
         2007 in Case T-250/05 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 69; see also, to that effect, judgment of 1 July 2008 in Case T-211/07 AWWW v FEACVT, not published in the ECR, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
      
      95      In the present case, in its letter of 11 January 2008, the Commission informed the applicant that its tender had not been
         chosen, because it did not offer the best price/quality ratio according to the contract award formula in the specifications.
         It follows that the applicant was informed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 100 of the financial regulation and
         Article 149 of the implementing rules, of the exact grounds for the rejection of its tender.
      
      96      Concerning the Commission’s obligation to notify the applicant of the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful
         tender and the name of the tenderer to whom the contract is awarded, it should be noted that, following a request from the
         applicant in its e-mail of 16 January 2008, in accordance with the provisions of the third subparagraph of Article 149(3)
         of the implementing rules, the Commission organised a debriefing meeting in order to give the applicant an overview of the
         advantages and disadvantages of its tender compared with those of the successful tenderer.
      
      97      Furthermore, by letter of 29 January 2008, the Commission, notified the applicant of the name of the successful tenderer and
         annexed minutes of the debriefing meeting to that letter. Those minutes take the form of telegraphic notes which specify the
         criteria used for the technical evaluation of the tender and the score received by the applicant’s tender for each of those
         criteria and the overall resulting score. It is apparent therefrom that the applicant’s tender was classified in first place
         following the technical evaluation. Concerning the financial evaluation, those minutes specify that it was based on the discount
         granted by the tenderers on the price of the supplier’s goods. In that respect, it is stated that the applicant’s tender was
         classified in second place with a difference of 0.55% compared with the price offered in the successful tender. It is apparent
         from the minutes of the debriefing meeting that, following the application of the formula used for those purposes, the successful
         tender offered a better price/quality ratio than the applicant’s tender, which justified the acceptance of the successful
         tender.
      
      98      Since, as pointed out in paragraph 92 above, the obligation to state reasons for a measure depends on the context in which
         it was adopted, in the present case the information communicated by the Commission to the applicant, following the latter’s
         e-mail of 16 January 2008, must be regarded as disclosing its reasoning in a sufficiently clear and unequivocal fashion. Therefore,
         that information made the applicant aware of the reasons for the measure taken so as to be able to defend its rights and to
         verify whether or not the contested decision was well founded, and permitted the Community judicature to review the lawfulness
         of that decision.
      
      99      Therefore, in the present case, the Commission satisfied the general obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253
         EC.
      
      100    It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that the first plea in law must be rejected.
      
      101    In the light of the conclusions reached in paragraphs 80 and 100 above, the application for annulment of the contested decision
         must be dismissed in its entirety.
      
      B –  The claim for damages
      1.     Arguments of the parties 
      102    In the alternative, the applicant claims damages in accordance with Articles 235 EC and 288 EC, in the event that the object
         of the contract has already been carried out or the decision can no longer be annulled. It submits that the Commission’s unlawful
         conduct gives rise to liability on its part. The applicant assesses the amount of damages ex aequo et bono at EUR 654 962.38, which represents the gross profit it would have made had it been granted the contract. All the arguments,
         complaints and grounds set out in support of the second plea for annulment support the claim for damages, which is therefore
         sufficiently substantiated.
      
      103    The Commission contends that the claim for damages must, at the very least, be declared unfounded.
      
      2.     Findings of the Court
      104    First of all, it should be noted that the third head of claim in the application, claiming that the Court should rule that
         the Commission’s unlawful conduct constitutes fault giving rise to liability on its part, must be interpreted in conjunction
         with the fourth head of claim, which seeks that the Commission be ordered to pay damages. As is expressly stated in the grounds
         set out in the alternative by the applicant in its application, its claim for damages, on the basis of Articles 235 EC and
         288 EC, is said to be justified in the light of the fact that the Commission has, by its unlawful conduct, committed a fault
         giving rise to its liability.
      
      105    It is settled case‑law that, in order for the Community to incur non‑contractual liability within the meaning of the second
         paragraph of Article 288 EC on account of the unlawful conduct of its institutions, a number of requirements must be satisfied,
         namely that the alleged conduct of the institutions is unlawful, that the damage is real and that there is a causal link between
         the conduct alleged and the damage in question (see Case T-69/00 FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-5393, paragraph 85 and the case-law cited).
      
      106    Since those three conditions for the incurring of liability are cumulative, failure to meet one of them is sufficient for
         an action for damages to be dismissed, without it therefore being necessary to examine the other conditions (see Case T-226/01
         CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission [2006] ECR II-2763, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
      
      107    In the present case, it should be noted that, as is apparent from the reasoning in paragraphs 71 to 80 above, all the arguments,
         complaints and grounds set out by the applicant in support of the second plea for annulment on which it relies so as to justify
         its claim for damages have been examined and rejected. Likewise, as is apparent from the reasoning in paragraphs 87 to 100
         above, all the arguments set out by the applicant in support of the first plea for annulment have been examined and rejected.
         Finally, it should be noted that the applicant does not allege any other form of unlawfulness which could be taken into account
         in the context of the examination of its claim for damages. In those circumstances, the Community cannot incur liability on
         the basis of the alleged unlawfulness of the contested decision.
      
      108    Therefore, as the first of the three conditions for the Community to incur liability is not fulfilled, the claim for damages
         must be dismissed as unfounded.
      
      109    It follows from the conclusions in paragraphs 101 and 108 above that the application must be dismissed in its entirety.
      
       Costs
      110    Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs
         if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
      
      111    In the present case, since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the
         form of order sought by the Commission.
      
      On those grounds,
      THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
      hereby:
      1.      Dismisses the action;
      2.      Orders PC-Ware Information Technologies BV to pay the costs.
      
               Pelikánová 
            
            
                Jürimäe 
            
            
                Soldevila Fragoso
            
         Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 11 May 2010.
      [Signatures]
      Table of contents
      
      Legal context
      A –  Community legislation
      B –  National legislation
      Facts of the dispute
      Procedure and forms of order sought
      Law
      A –  The application for annulment
      1.  Admissibility of the application for annulment
      a)  The applicant’s lack of interest in bringing proceedings
      Arguments of the parties
      Findings of the Court
      b)  Plea that the application for annulment is devoid of purpose
      Arguments of the parties
      Findings of the Court
      2.  Substance
      a)  The second plea, alleging infringement of Article 55 of Directive 2004/18 and Articles 139(1) and 146(4) of the implementing
         rules, read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 40 of the Belgian law on trade practices
      
      Arguments of the parties
      Findings of the Court
      –  The branches of the second plea alleging infringement of a directive and the Belgian legislation
      –  The branch of the second plea alleging infringement of the implementing rules
      b)  The first plea, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons
      Arguments of the parties
      Findings of the Court
      B –  The claim for damages
      1.  Arguments of the parties
      2.  Findings of the Court
      Costs
      * Language of the case: Dutch.