CELEX: C2000/285/37
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-206/00: Action brought on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult against the Commission of the European Communities

C 285/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.10.2000
Communities on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A., established                 whether, upon the award of the contract in issue, the
in Milan (Italy), represented by Francesco Apruzzi, of the              contracting authority did actually observe the conditions laid
Brussels Bar, and Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg Bar.                down for ensuring that the tender corresponded to the contract
                                                                        specifications.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
                                                                            coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                                                                            contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54, as corrected by L 111 of
—     annul the decision of the Council of the European
                                                                            30.4.1994, p. 115).
      Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter from the General           (2) Council Decision 93/371/EC of 20 December 1993 on public
      Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, ref.                access to Council documents (OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 43).
      IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the
      costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult against
                                                                               the Commission of the European Communities
The present action is directed against the decision of the                                        (Case T-206/00)
Council of the European Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter
from its General Secretariat (ref. IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm),                                          (2000/C 285/37)
refusing to accede to the request made by the applicant
company for access to the administrative file concerning the
evaluation of tenders for the contract entitled ‘Installation and
maintenance works to be carried out in the buildings of the                                 (Language of the case: French)
Council of the European Union (JO/S146-107865)’, from
which that company was excluded.                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult,
The contract in question, which was of a restricted nature,             residing at Howald (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented
involved a study of, and the carrying-out and coordination of,          by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
a general project for installation, alteration and maintenance
works in relation to the Council’s buildings.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission fixing the appli-
The applicant points out that, when the tender bids were                      cant’s classification on recruitment in grade A 7, step 1;
opened by the committee evaluating the tenders, it appeared
that the lowest price for the provision of the works in question        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
was that proposed by the applicant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant company maintains, first, that the position
adopted by the Council is not in accordance with the policy of
openness and transparency introduced and pursued by the                 The applicant in the present case, who successfully passed
Community authorities since October 1992. It further states             open competition EUR/A/123, contests the decision of the
that, so far as concerns Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1), as       appointing authority classifying her in grade A 7, step 1, on
well as Decision 93/371/EC (2) and the Code of Conduct for              her appointment as a category A official.
public access to documents, the defendant has not indicated
the precise provision and the interests needing to be protected         In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
which purportedly prevent it from communicating the docu-
ments requested to the applicant. By the same token, the                —     failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
Council has not stated any reasons as to why the contents of                  statement of reasons, infringement of the second para-
the administrative file might be covered by one of the                        graph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and breach
exceptions provided for in Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC                   of the decision concerning the criteria applicable to
and/or Decision 93/371/EC.                                                    appointment in grade and classification in step of Com-
                                                                              mission officials on recruitment;
In those circumstances, the applicant is unable to assess the           —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
extent to which the decision at issue may be lawful or to verify              assessment;
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 285/21
—     violation of the principles of equal treatment, non-            Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-321/94 and
      discrimination and legal certainty, and of the principles                                 T-343/94 (1)
      applying to the withdrawal of administrative acts.
                                                                                             (2000/C 285/38)
The applicant points out that, by admitting her to the tests
in competitions EUR/A/123 and COM/A/12, the respective
selection boards implicitly recognised that she had since
20 December 1986 (on which date she was awarded a Bachelor                              (Language of the case: German)
of Arts degree by the University of New Mexico) possessed a
degree entitling her to classification in grade A. However,           By order of 10 April 2000 the President of the Fourth Chamber
according to Article 3 of the decision concerning the criteria        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communites
applicable to appointment in grade and classification in step         has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
on recruitment and Annex II thereto, the applicant was thus           T-321/94 and T-343/94, Helmut Rodermann and Peter Bach
entitled to 48 months’ seniority by virtue of professional            v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
experience acquired by her prior to her entry into service as a       European Communities.
grade A official.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 351 of 10.12.1994.