CELEX: C1997/054/49
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Embassy Limousines & Services SA against European Parliament (Case T-203/96)

No C 54/30           I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 2 . 97
order to ensure compliance with the judgment by the                  awarded, subject to Luxembourg law and also provided
French State. The applicants consider that the Commission            for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the
allowed the French State total discretion and complete               European Communities .
freedom to resort to whatever domestic legal provisions
were necessary in order to negate the entire effect of               The applicant claims, first, that there has been an
the provisions of Community law thus adjudicated on,                 infringement of Articles 1134, 1134-1 and 1135 of the
thereby seriously undermining the coherence and                      Luxembourg Civil Code, of the general principles of the
effectiveness of those provisions .                                  law on contracts and of the performance in good faith of
                                                                     contracts . It stresses in that regard that the contract at
The applicants further consider that the aggregated                  issue was awarded by valid, public and unequivocal
damage to be made good by the Commission, whose                      consensus ad idem .
failure to act continues to render it liable, amounts to 25
million French francs, valued as at 1988 , subject to                Secondly, the applicant states that even if it were to be
application of the appropriate weighting to take into                assumed that there was no actual or apparent contract in
account the depreciation of that currency, namely 1,19%              this case, which is denied, there should be a finding of
 ( total sum : ECU 4 562 884 ).                                      tortious liability, first, during the precontractual phase
                                                                     and, secondly, by virtue of infringement of Article 1382 et
H 1988 ECR 4489 .                                                    seq. of the Luxembourg Civil Code and of the Grand­
                                                                     Ducal Regulation of 27 January 1994 implementing in
                                                                     Luxembourg law the EEC directives on public works
                                                                     contracts, public supply contracts and public services
                                                                     contracts . Specifically, there is no doubt that all the
                                                                     information required from tenderers was contained in the
Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Embassy                        applicant's tender in accordance with Article 29 of Title II
    Limousines & Services SA against European Parliament             of the abovementioned Grand-Ducal Regulation. Likewise,
                        ( Case T-203/96 )                            Article 23 of the General Conditions established by that
                                                                     regulation permits a supplier to be excluded from
                           ( 97/C 54/49 )                            participation in the contracting procedure only in the
                 (Language of the case: French)                      exhaustive cases to which it refers, which, according to
                                                                     the applicant, are wholly inapplicable here .
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   The applicant concludes that in any event the defendant
Communities on 10 December 1996 by Embassy                           institution conducted itself negligently and even
                                                                     improperly in ignoring and flouting its interests. If the
Limousines & Services SA, whose registered office is at
                                                                     defendant did not intend to perform the contract and/or
Diegem, Belgium, represented by E. Boigelot, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           considered that no contract had arisen, it is particularly
the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .            abusive and injurious to require the applicant to carry out
                                                                     urgent and costly preparation, which was particularly
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          demanding in terms of time, energy and expense, for a
                                                                     contract which it is then decided not to perform or which
— order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant              is alleged to be non-existent.
      the sum of FB 24 267 910, subject to an increase or
      reduction in that amount in the course of the
      proceedings, by way of compensation for the financial,
      commercial and non-material damage which it is
      suffering on account of the wrongful conduct of the
      European Parliament,                                           Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Mrs Marta
                                                                     Alvarez-Cotera against the Commission of the European
                                                                                               Communities
— order the European Parliament to bear all the costs of
      the proceedings.                                                                      ( Case T-204/96 )
                                                                                               ( 97/C 54/50 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
The applicant, a service company, which claims to have
been contacted officially by a representative of the                 An action against the Commission of the European
defendant institution for the purpose of informing it of the         Communities was brought before the Court of First
award to it of the contract for which it had tendered                Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
concerning the provision, by external services, of                   1996 by Mrs Marta Alvarez-Cotera , represented by
chauffeur-driven transport on the occasion of meetings in            Gerald van der Wal, Member of the Bar of the Supreme
Brussels, objects to the withdrawal of the invitation to             Court of the Netherlands, of Barents & Krans, Advocaten
tender in question and the initiation of a new award                 Notarissen , Brussels , with an address for service in
procedure .                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, Luxembourg.
It explains that under the terms of the invitation to tender         The applicant claims that the Court should :
and the framework contract at issue the European
Parliament made the framework contract, and contracts                — declare the decision of 25 September 1996 void,