CELEX: C1998/209/85
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 April 1998 by Compagnie Continentale (France) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-61/98)

C 209/40             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Ð declare that the applicants are to be admitted to the             Action brought on 8 April 1998 by Compagnie
     tendering procedure in response to an invitation to            Continentale (France) against the Commission of the
     tender by the European Commission for a project                                   European Communities
     financed by the TACIS fund entitled: Russia':                                         (Case T-61/98)
     Promoting Co-operative Ventures by Independent
     Farmers', brief title: Independent Farmers' Co-ops                                     (98/C 209/85)
     (Project No FDRUS 9701).
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 1998
                                                                    by Compagnie Continentale (France), established at
The applicants are participants in a joint venture under            LabeÁge (France), represented by Patrick Chabrier, of the
Danish law entitled Ecord Consortium for Russian Co-                Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
operation, formed to provide a framework for the                    the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
preparation of a tender in response to an invitation to
tender by the European Commission, and, in the event of
a successful tender, to procure technical assistance and            The applicant claims that the Court should:
administration for the project, including certain financial
arrangements.
                                                                    Ð declare that Compagnie Continentale has the requisite
                                                                        legal capacity to bring its action for non-contractual
On 13 March 1998 the applicant Danagro Adviser sent                     liability against the Commission of the European
Ecord's tender by DHL courier to the address given in the               Communities,
Commission's invitation to tender Tacis Procurement
Unit, Rue de la Loi 99, 1040 Brussels'. The tender arrived
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay to                  Compagnie
in Brussels on 16 March 1998; the staff of the
                                                                        Continentale the sum of ECU 1 858 987,
Commission signed to acknowledge receipt of it at 8.30
a. m. The deadline for the submission of tenders was
16 March 1998 at 11.00 a. m.                                        Ð order the Commission to pay to Compagnie
                                                                        Continentale interest on those sums at the legal rate,
According to the applicants, by letter of 15 November
1991 DHL had received instructions from the Commission              Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
to deliver all mail addressed to the Commission to the
central mail office of the European Communities at 1140
Evere, 12 Rue de GeneÁve. The mail office informed DHL              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
on 16 March after 11.00 a. m. that the consignment from
Danagro had to be delivered directly to Tacis Procurement
Unit. DHL then took the consignment and delivered it                The applicant states that on 27 November 1992 it
directly to Tacis Procurement Unit on 17 March 1998. By             concluded two contracts for the sale of wheat with Vao
letter of 17 March 1998 (contested decision), the                   Exportkhleb, a Russian importer, within the framework of
applicants' tender was rejected on the ground that it was           a medium-term loan granted by the Community to the
submitted late.                                                     Soviet Union and its Republics with a view to financing
                                                                    purchases of supplies of agricultural products. On
                                                                    23 February 1993 the applicant agreed with Exportkhleb
The applicants submit that the contested decision should            new prices for quantities of wheat to be delivered from
be annulled on the grounds of breach of the principles of           28 February 1993. Those agreements, which took the
the protection of legitimate expectations, sound                    form of amendments to the initial contracts, were sent for
administration and the duty of diligence. They argue that           approval to the Commission by the VneshEconomBank of
the Commission acted in breach of the principles of                 Moscow. By letter of 1 April 1993 Mr Steichen, a
natural justice in rejecting their tender. The rules                Member        of    the     Commission,      informed    the
governing the tendering procedure are intended to exclude           VneshEconomBank of the Commission's refusal to
the possibility of collusion between those awarding the             approve the amendments.
contracts and to ensure fair treatment of all candidates.
The rules are not intended to rule out genuine and valid
tenders on the pretext of technical errors which are                The applicant, which has already contested that refusal by
beyond the control of the tenderers. Both the applicants            the Commission in proceedings before the Community
and DHL followed the instructions given to them by the              judicature (1), considers, on the basis of arguments very
Commission. The fact that those instructions did not                similar to those advanced in support of the application for
achieve the desired result is entirely beyond their control.        annulment, that there has been misconduct on the part of
                                                                    the defendant institution. It therefore claims compensation
                                                                    for the damage suffered as a result of the refusal by the
                                                                    Community's financial agent to pay for the supplies of
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/41
wheat delivered by the applicant at the prices agreed in               grounds or by an insufficient statement of grounds. At
February 1993.                                                         no time during the pre-litigation procedure was the
                                                                       applicant informed, either directly or indirectly
(1) Case C-357/93 (subsequently Case T-494/93), OJ C 231,              through her doctor, of the precise medical reasons on
    27.8.1993, p. 10.                                                  which the administrative decision taken with respect
                                                                       to her was based, despite her request for such
                                                                       information, nor, as a consequence, was she in a
                                                                       position to put her point of view on the findings and
                                                                       conclusions of the medical officer and, if necessary, to
                                                                       dispute their substance.
Action brought on 20 April 1998 by Giuliana Gaspari                Ð Infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention
               against the European Parliament                         on Human Rights, in that the applicant never
                        (Case T-66/98)                                 authorised the medical officer of the office responsible
                                                                       for settling claims in Luxembourg to seek the opinion
                         (98/C 209/86)
                                                                       of the doctors expressly mentioned in the explicit
                                                                       decision rejecting her request and, in particular, to
                (Language of the case: French)                         pass on to them any information whatsoever regarding
                                                                       her state of health.
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 20 April 1998 by Giuliana Gaspari
residing in Sandweiler (Luxembourg), represented by Jean
NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   Action brought on 20 April 1998 by Theodore
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30,            Giannakopoulos against the Commission of the European
Rue de Cessange.                                                                            Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-67/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                (98/C 209/87)
                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
Ð annul the decision of 26 August 1997 by the office
     responsible for settling claims not to grant to the
     applicant the prior authorisation necessary for               An action against the Commission of the European
     reimbursement of the expenses of the treatment at a           Communities was brought before the Court of First
     spa prescribed by her doctor,                                 Instance of the European Communities on 20 April 1998
                                                                   by Theodore Giannakopoulos, residing in Brussels,
                                                                   represented by Jean NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq,
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels
                                                                   Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Between 1990 and 1995 the applicant underwent six
courses of treatment at a spa because of her health
problems. On 8 March 1996 she submitted a request for              Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to take
prior authorisation for a further course of treatment at a             account of medical certificates justifying the absence
spa. Although that treatment had been deemed to be                     of the applicant on the grounds of sickness from
necessary and indispensible, her request was refused                   17 July to 30 September 1997,
without any grounds being given. On 5 June 1997 the
applicant submitted a further request for prior
                                                                   Ð annul the decision of 12 May 1997, and, as far as
authorisation on the basis of a medical certificate of 3 June
                                                                       necessary, that of 18 April of that year, granting the
1997 from her rheumatologist. By the contested decision
                                                                       applicant leave on personal grounds from 1 August to
the office responsible for settling claims refused to grant
                                                                       30 September 1997,
the prior authorisation necessary for the reimbursement of
the expenses arising from this.
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay      the applicant the salary
                                                                       unlawfully withheld since 1     August 1997 together
She puts forward the following pleas in support of her                 with interest on the amount    in arrears calculated at
claims:                                                                8 % per annum from the         date due until actual
                                                                       payment,
Ð Violation of her right to a fair hearing in that the
     contested decision is vitiated by failure to state any        Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.