CELEX: C2001/245/17
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-250/01 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-202/00 between Mr Costacurta and the Commission of the European Communities

1.9.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 245/9
Question 1:                                                            The appellant claims that the Court should:
Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-           —     find the present appeal admissible;
ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of review
procedures to the award of public supply and public works              —     find the appeal well founded as to the substance;
contracts to be interpreted as meaning that any person seeking
the award of a specific pending public contract is entitled to
institute a review procedure?                                          —     order, if the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
                                                                             allow it, the present appeal to be joined to the appeal
                                                                             against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                             Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 concerning
                                                                             the same dispute and lodged this day;
Question 2:
                                                                       —     set aside the order delivered by the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-202/00
In the event that the answer given to Question 1 is no:
                                                                             Costacurta v Commission;
Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning            —     make a decision as to how Case T-202/00 Costacurta v
that, if a tenderer’s bid is not eliminated by the contracting               Commission is to proceed in accordance with Article 54
authority, but the review body finds in the course of the review             of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;
procedure that the contracting authority would have been
bound to eliminate it, the tenderer has been or risks being
harmed by the infringement alleged by him — in this case the           —     order the Commission of the European Communities
finding by the contracting authority that a rival tenderer                   already to pay the costs of the interlocutory proceedings
submitted the best bid — and that he must therefore have the                 and of the present appeal;
right to bring a review procedure?
                                                                       —     reserve the costs as to the substance; find, none the less,
( 1) OJ L 395, p. 33.                                                        that Article 88, rather than Article 87(2), of the Rules of
                                                                             Procedure of the Court of First Instance are applicable;
                                                                       —     reserve to the appellant all other rights, dues, pleas and
                                                                             actions.
Appeal brought on 2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta
against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Second               Pleas and main arguments
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-202/00 between Mr Costacurta
     and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       —     Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and
                                                                             breach of Community law.
                       (Case C-250/01 P)
                                                                       —     Prejudice to the appellant’s interests, misuse of powers.
                        (2001/C 245/17)
                                                                       —     Error in law inasmuch as the Court of First Instance ruled
An appeal against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the                  that retirement meant that the appellant no longer had
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                any right to seek annulment of the contested act: the
Communities in Case T-202/00 between Mr Costacurta and                       appellant claims the right to have his administrative
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                       status regularised a posteriori.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta, represented by Mr Petit,
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.