CELEX: C1998/234/63
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 May 1998 by CIT Belgique SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-80/98)

C 234/32             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
geographical indication, as a result of a decision which            Executive Director of the EMEA definitively classified the
gives more the impression of a political compromise than            applicant upon recruitment in Grade 7, step 3.
the final legitimate outcome of a procedure for recognition
of a quality product.
                                                                    The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EMEA
                                                                    committed a manifest error of assessment by that
The applicants also argue that on 11 March 1996 the                 classification on the ground that he had not shown to
Director of Directorate-General VI (Agriculture) of the             have twelve years of experience, five of which of practical
Commission advised the Italian State that the proposal put          experience in the field specified in the job description for
forward on 22 January 1994 (that is to say, well beyond             which he had applied. That manifest error of assessment
the deadline set in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC)               prejudices the applicant's career prospect and runs counter
No 2081/92) to break down the designation of Tuscan'               to the principle of legitimate expectations.
origin in terms of sub-areas by way of variants' was not
permissible. On that basis, the applicants are at a loss to
understand how the Commission was able, ultimately, to
grant recognition of the protected geographical indication
Tuscan' and the related rules, which entail precisely those
variants' Ð sub-areas Ð which are clearly not permissible
in that, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)                 Action brought on 25 May 1998 by CIT Belgique SA
No 2081/92, they were proposed out of time.                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                            (Case T-80/98)
                                                                                             (98/C 234/63)
                                                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs
Carrasco Benítez against European Agency for the
              Evaluation of Medicinal Products                      An action against the Commission of the European
                       (Case T-79/98)                               Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 1998
                        (98/C 234/62)                               by CIT Belgique SA, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo,
                                                                    of the Trapani Bar, Claudio Tesauro and Francesco
                (Language of the case: French)                      Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                    Albert 1er
An action against European Agency for the Evaluation of
Medicinal Products (the EMEA) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on              The applicant claims that the Court should:
23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez,
residing at London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
VeÂronique Leclerq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                    Ð annul the measure contained in a letter of 23 March
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service            1998 whereby the Commission closed tender
in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson S.aÁ.r.l., 30 Rue de                  procedure 97/33/IX.C.1, and all preceding, subsequent
Cessange.                                                               and/or connected acts and in particular the decision to
                                                                        award the contract for Travel agency services to
                                                                        provide tickets and associated services, especially hotel
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             reservations relating to business trips made by officials
                                                                        and agents on missions' (OJ 1998 p. 83);
Ð annul the EMEA's decision classifying the applicant in
    Grade A 7, step 3;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to make good the harm suffered
                                                                        by CIT as a result of the unlawful award of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 contract to BBL Travel for the provision of travel
                                                                        agency services to officials and other agents on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     mission;
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in Grade             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, including the
A 7, passed competition EMEA/A/105. The experience                      costs incurred by the applicant by way of legal fees.
required for classification in Grade A 5 was of 12 years,
at least five years of which were to be of practical
experience.                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Although the Director General of the EMEA had indicated             The contested decision constitutes the last stage of a
in a letter to the applicant that he intended to engage him         tender procedure followed by the defendant for the award
as a member of the temporary staff in Grade A 5, the                of the contract for the provision of travel agency services
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/33
for officials and other agents on mission. Until April 1997,        Action brought on 25 May 1998 by Patricia Boyes against
those services (ticket issuing, hotel bookings and                        the Commission of the European Communities
associated services) were provided by four travel agencies,                               (Case T-81/98)
including the applicant. In 1997, before the expiry of the
contract, the Commission opened an initial procedure.                                      (98/C 234/64)
After receiving the tenders, the defendant decided to annul
that procedure.
                                                                                  (Language of the case: English)
On 20 March 1998, the Commission informed the
applicant of its intention not to award a new contract in           An action against the Commission of the European
respect of which a prior call for competition was made in           Communities was brought before the Court of First
view of the fact that various tenders' were irregular and          Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 1998
that it therefore intended to award the contract by means           by Patricia Boyes, represented by S. C. I. Ferdinand, J.
of negotiated procedure without prior publication of the            Tracey Kelly, J. Singh Sandhu and Becket Bedford, of
contract notice.                                                    Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill, Birmingham,
                                                                    B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
general principle of the protection of legitimate                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
expectations, infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty
and of Articles 11 and 12 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC
of 16 June 1992 (1), and misuse of powers as a result of            Ð annul the decision of the Commission in Case IV/
abuse of procedures.                                                    34.907/F3 Ð NAIL dated 5 March 1998;
The applicant claims in this regard that, so far as concerns        Ð declare that the Commission is required under
contracts, the general principle of the protection of                   Article 176 of the Treaty establishing the European
legitimate expectations requires any contracting body who               Community to take the necessary measures to comply
has made the award of a contract subject to a tender                    with the judgment to be delivered;
procedure to conclude the procedure, unless supervening
circumstances which were unforeseeable when the
contract notice was published cause the contracting                 Ð in application of Article 215 of that Treaty, order the
authority to lose interest in the contract. In the present              Commission to make good the damage caused by the
case, the defendant first of all suspended the tender                   Commission's decision dated 5 March 1995; and
procedure in order to alter the technical specifications in
the contract documents' and subsequently annulled it                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
because of substantial alterations to the specifications in
the contract notice'. However, despite the fact that the
contracting authority cannot effect any alterations to the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contract notice or, even less, to the contract documents
since that would constitute a serious breach of the
principle of non-discrimination, the Commission based               The applicant explains that in June 1991 she became the
itself on such grounds in order to annul the procedure.             tenant of The Britannia Inn in the village of Alcombe,
Moreover, the Commission never informed the applicant               Minehead, Somerset under a lease which had been granted
of the reasons for the annulment of the tender procedure.           to her by Inntrepreneur Estates Limited. The lease
                                                                    contained a beer-tie provision. On 17 July 1992
                                                                    Inntrepreneur notified, inter alia, the applicant's lease to
Secondly, the applicant claims that the derogations                 the Commission and applied for negative clearance, a
provided by Article 11 of the directive to the general              declaration that its standard lease fell within Regulation
system must be interpreted strictly in so far as they               (EEC) No 1984/83 (1) and/or retrospective individual
constitute an exception to the general rule provided for            exemption. On 30 July 1993 the Commission published
therein, and the contracting authority must show that the           an Article 19(3) Notice in relation to Inntrepreneur (Case
requisite requirements for their application have been              IV/34.387) (2) in which it stated that it had reached a
fulfilled, that is that an open or restricted procedure was         favourable conclusion and intended to grant retrospective
abandoned on the ground that the tenders submitted were             individual exemption. The applicant, together with
irregular or unacceptable. In any event, the contracting            numerous other tenants of Inntrepreneur, notified the
authority cannot alter the substantive conditions of the            Commission of their opposition to the proposed grant of
contract. The applicant claims that, nevertheless, in the           retrospective individual exemption. Subsequently, in
present case some of the offers submitted were valid and            October 1993, she submitted, separately, a formal
that, furthermore, the defendant reduced considerably the           complaint to the Commission in respect of Inntrepreneur
duration of the contract in question, from two years to             (Case IV/34.907/F3). Inntrepreneur withdrew its
seven months and to four months respectively for the two            application for exemption in October 1997 and on
successful tenderers.                                               5 March 1998 the Commission formally rejected the
                                                                    applicant's complaint for lack of Community interest on
(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                    the ground that her rights under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                    Treaty could be adequately safeguarded by the national
                                                                    courts.