CELEX: C2000/273/25
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-183/00: Action brought on 13 July 2000 by S.A. Strabag Benelux N.V. against the Council of the European Union

C 273/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.9.2000
remaining within the limits of the findings of fact made by the           —     annul the Commission’s decision to appoint another
Commission. On the other hand, in the assumption that the                       person to fill that post;
Council did have power to reject the proposal, such rejection
was illegal in the present case, because it constituted
                                                                          —     in so far as may be necessary, annul the implicit decision
                                                                                of the appointing authority rejecting the pre-litigation
—     a wilful disregard or manifest error of appreciation of the               claim made by the applicant;
      facts found by the Commission
—     a denial of procedural rights and legitimate expectations           —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
      of the complainants                                                       decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
                                                                                the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
—     a failure to state adequate reasons as required by
                                                                                information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
      Article 253 EC
                                                                                applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
                                                                                worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
Finally, the applicant claims that the Council is liable under                  future career;
Article 288(2) EC because its failure to adopt protective
measures amounts to unlawful conduct which caused and
continues to cause damage to the applicant.                               —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
                                                                                decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                                applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on                    candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
    protection against dumped imports from countries not members                lost an opportunity of promotion;
    of the European Community, OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1, as last amended
    by Council Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998, OJ
    L 128, p. 18.                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                          Cases T-135/00, T-136/00 and T-164/00.
Action brought on 6 July 2000 by Carmelo Morello
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-181/00)
                         (2000/C 273/24)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 13 July 2000 by S.A. Strabag Benelux
                                                                                N.V. against the Council of the European Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 July 2000 by Carmelo Morello,                                            (Case T-183/00)
residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre
Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                                   (2000/C 273/25)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting his application                              (Language of the case: French)
      for post COM/090/99 IV/C/1 as head of unit with
      responsibility for directing and coordinating the work of
      the ‘Telecommunications and Postal Services’ unit within            An action against the Council of the European Union was
      the Information, Communications and Multimedia Direc-               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      torate, and annul all preparatory acts adopted in antici-           Communities on 13 July 2000 by S.A. Strabag Benelux
      pation of that decision which may themselves prove to               N.V., established at Stabroek (Belgium), represented by André
      be irregular;                                                       Delvaux, of the Brussels Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.9.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 273/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 24 July 2000 by Sabrina Tesoka against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of 12 April 2000 by which the Council
      awarded to another company the contract for general
      installation and maintenance works forming the subject-                                    (Case T-192/00)
      matter of Notice 107865 published in Official Journal
      S 145 of 30 July 1999;
                                                                                                 (2000/C 273/26)
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay to
      Strabag, subject to increase, the sum of BEF 153 421 286
      or EUR 3 803 214 together with interest thereon at the
      rate of 6 % from 12 April 2000;
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
—     order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 24 July 2000 by Sabrina Tesoka,
                                                                         residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis
The applicant participated in the restricted tendering procedure         and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
relating to the installation and maintenance works to be
carried out in the Council’s buildings in Brussels.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its action for annulment, it maintains:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
—     that the contested decision is vitiated by the absence of a              COM/A/12/98 awarding her, in her oral test, a mark
      statement of reasons or, at the very least, by inadequate                lower than the minimum required and excluding her
      reasoning;                                                               from the reserve list;
—     that by attaching the greatest weight to the price criterion,
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      and by failing to consider the other criteria for the award
      of the contract as provided for in the tender specifications,
      the Council has infringed Articles 18 and 30 of Directi-
      ve 93/37/EEC (1);
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     that by awarding the contract to a company whose
      tender was not in conformity with the special tender
      specifications, the Council has infringed the terms of the
      latter document;                                                   In support of her application, the applicant pleads:
—     that by classifying three tenderers as being of equal merit        —     failure to comply with essential procedural requirements,
      with regard to the first criterion and, probably, another                violation of the principle of equal treatment and infringe-
      company and Strabag as being of equal merit with regard                  ment of the rules governing the functioning of selection
      to the fourth criterion, the Council committed manifest                  boards, in that the composition of the selection board
      errors of assessment.                                                    varied during the course of the oral testing of the various
                                                                               candidates; and
Lastly, the applicant claims compensation for the damage
which, it claims, results from the fact of its having been               —     non-compliance with the obligation to provide a state-
unfairly turned down as a tenderer for the contract in question.               ment of reasons, in that it is not possible to determine
                                                                               from the overall mark awarded for the oral test whether
                                                                               the selection board fulfilled its obligation to carry out an
                                                                               assessment of the points set out in the competition
(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the                 notice.
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works
    contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).