CELEX: C1998/094/63
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 December 1997 by AZ Com SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-302/97)

C 94/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Farida Chorfi, 8 Rue des Girondins.
2. The applicant shall bear the entire costs.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
                                                                   Ð annul the Commission's decision of unknown date
                                                                        awarding the contract to train the Commission's
                                                                        drivers to the Jesco Auto Training School,
Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Elta GmbH
                                                                   Ð annul the rejection implied thereby of the applicant's
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        tender.
                      (Case T-293/97)
                         (98/C 94/62)
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   The applicant states that it submitted a tender on
An action against the Commission of the European                   14 October 1996 in response to the call for tenders No 95/
Communities was lodged at the Registry of the Court of             22/IXC1 (OJ C 142, 14.5.1996, p. 31) for the conclusion
Justice on 19 November 1997 by Elta GmbH, whose                    of a framework contract for the provision of training
registered office is at Dreiech (Federal Republic of               services intended for the Commission's drivers, by letter of
Germany); pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 47 of         7 December 1997 it was informed by the Commission that
the EC Statute of the Court of Justice it was transmitted          its tender had not been successful. According to its
to the Registry of the Court of First Instance. The                information, the contract was awarded to Jesco Auto
applicant is represented by Günther Breit, Rechtsanwalt,           Training School, which had already obtained a similar
with an address for service at 33 Mercatorstraûe,                  contract with the Commission as from 1992.
Frankfurt am Main.
                                                                   The applicant maintains that the procedure for awarding
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        the public contract was not in conformity with the
                                                                   applicable rules, in particular Articles 50 to 58 of the
Ð annul Commission Decision of 19 February 1997,                   Commission's financial Regulation of 21 December 1977
    addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, holding          applicable to the general budget of the European
    the remission of import duties amounting to DEM                Communities, Articles 126 to 129 of the Commission's
    113 875, 49 owed by the applicant to be unjustified            Financial Regulation of 9 December 1993 laying down
                                                                   detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions
                                                                   of the Financial Regulation and Council Directive 92/50/
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
                                                                   procedures for the award of public contracts.
The pleas in law and the main arguments are analogous to
those relied on in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97,
T-191/97, T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97, T-217/           It claims in this regard that:
97, T-218/97 (1), T-279/97 and T-280/97.
                                                                   Ð the Commission awarded the public contract in the
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, pp. 17 to 25.
                                                                        belief that it was in the framework of a closed
                                                                        procedure whereas the call for tenders, as
                                                                        communicated to the tenderers, was undeniably open
                                                                        and did not entail any pre-selection of tenders,
Action brought on 5 December 1997 by AZ Com SA                     Ð the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   Contracts did not appear to have been sought,
                                                                        although the value of the contract exceeded the
                      (Case T-302/97)
                                                                        threshold beyond which that opinion must be sought,
                         (98/C 94/63)
                                                                   Ð the matching of tenders had not been carried out
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        lawfully,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Ð it had not been notified of any reasoned decision for
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                      the award of the public contract, from which it
1997 by AZ Com SA, established in Luxembourg,                           follows that the statement of reasons for the decision
represented by Luc Van Damme, of the Brussels Bar, with                 to award the contract was inadequate,
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/25
Ð the public contract appears to have been awarded                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    after 14 April 1997, the date on which the deadline
    for valid tenders expired, without the tenderers having
    been asked to confirm whether or not their price                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    remained the same, and                                               damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
                                                                         application,
Ð subject to an examination of the administrative file at
    a later stage, it must be considered to have been
    established that the successful tender is not in                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
    conformity with the whole of the obligations set out in              applicant's costs.
    the special contract documents, which necessarily
    vitiates the decision to accept that tender.                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
                                                                     arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect
                                                                     to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
Action brought on 5 December 1997 by SPRL Ecole de                   producer, has not been compensated for the absence of
Maîtrise Automobile against the Commission of the                    quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-303/97)
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the
                         (98/C 94/64)                                applicant are similar to those raised in Cases T-195/94
                                                                     and T-202/94 Quiller and Heusmann v. Council and
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Commission (1) and T-10/96 Lay v. Council and
An action against the Commission of the European                     Commission (2).
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                   In relation to the five-year limitation period under
1997 by SPRL Ecole de Maîtrise Automobile, established               Article 43 of the Protocol on the (EC) Statute the Court of
in Luxembourg, represented by Luc Van Damme, of the                  Justice, the applicant contends that it only began to run
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           from the date when that Court held that the non-
the Chambers of Farida Chorfi, 8 Rue des Girondins.                  allocation of quota to the SLOM III group was illegal.
                                                                     Alternatively, the failure to provide for a SLOM III quota
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     constituted a continuing breach up to the date of its
                                                                     introduction in 1993 and the Council and the Commission
Ð annul the Commission's decision of unknown date
                                                                     were therefore guilty of a continuing breach of the
    awarding the contract to train the Commission's
                                                                     applicant's legitimate expectations from the end of the
    drivers to the Jesco Auto Training School,
                                                                     non-marketing scheme until that date.
Ð annul the rejection implied thereby of the applicant's
    tender.                                                          (1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994, p. 16, and
                                                                         OJ C 218, 6.8.1994, p. 22.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  (2) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996, p. 23.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those relied upon in Case T-302/97.
                                                                     Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull
                                                                     against the Council of the European Union and the
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon                         Commission of the European Communities
against the Council of the European Union and the                                           (Case T-305/97)
         Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-304/97)                                                        (98/C 94/66)
                         (98/C 94/65)
                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union and              An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                       the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon,                  Communities on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull,
represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs                  represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs
Dawson & Co, of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London                  Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London
WC2A 3RZ.                                                            WC2A 3RZ.