CELEX: C1999/071/68
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 4 January 1999 by Pantelis N. Andriotis against the European Commission and the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (Case T-5/99)

13.3.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/37
Action brought on 4 January 1999 by Pantelis N.                    Action brought on 15 January 1999 by NV Firma LeÂon
Andriotis against the European Commission and the                  Van Parys, NV Pacific Fruit Company, Pacific
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                  Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA
                     Training (CEDEFOP)                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-5/99)                                                    (Case T-11/99)
                                                                                          (1999/C 71/69)
                        (1999/C 71/68)
                                                                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                (Language of the case: Greek)                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 January
An action against the European Commission and the                  1999 by NV Firma LeÂon Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                  Company, both established in Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific
Training (hereinafter CEDEFOP') was brought before the            Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany),
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on             and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA, established in Rome
4 January 1999 by Pantelis N. Andriotis, architect-                (Italy), all represented by P. Vlaemminck, L. Van Den
engineer, resident in Thessaloniki, represented by Stella          Hende and J. Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address
Ioannidou, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyn Korn,              of Messrs Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
21 Rue de Nassau, L-2113.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        (1) annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of
                                                                        28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                        implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the
Ð find the action admissible;                                           Community.
                                                                   (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð order the defendants to inform him in writing either of
    the precise notification in the Official Journal of the        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    results of procedure APO/97/005 or that there has
    been no such notification;                                     Ð The changes introduced and implemented by the
                                                                        contested regulation are in breach of the GATS
                                                                        agreement and the GATT 1994 agreement, the
Ð order the defendants to pay his costs.                                intention of the Community being to adapt itself
                                                                        thereto; they also violate the agreement between the
                                                                        EC and the members of the Cartagena Group, the
                                                                        principle of the protection of legitimate expectations,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     the principle of good faith in public international law,
                                                                        the customary rules of international law as codified in
                                                                        the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the
The applicant took part in award procedure APO/97/005                   binding effect of an award made in arbitration
of which CEDEFOP gave notice in July 1997 (1). In                       proceedings provided for in an international agreement
November 1997 he found out that the contract had been                   concluded by the Community. Those violations result
awarded to another candidate. However, notice of that                   both from Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 itself and
award was never published, even though such publication                 from Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 amending
is mandatory under Articles 16 and 17 of Council                        Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, which constitutes the
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                     legal basis of the regulation contested in the present
coordination of procedures for the award of public service              case.
contracts (2).
                                                                   Ð The Commission has exceeded its executive powers by
                                                                        laying down rules for the implementation of
In the applicant's view, the decision by CEDEFOP                        Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 which conflict with
awarding the contract was biased and, furthermore, when                 GATS and GATT 1994.
the contract was signed, the selected contractor was
replaced in an impermissible and unlawful manner.                  Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations and of the general legal principle patere
                                                                        legem quam ipse fecisti', in that the Commission has
(1) OJ S 139, 19.7.1997, p. 44.                                         not issued import licences to the actual importer', in
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                          accordance with the declaration made by it to the
                                                                        Council.