CELEX: C2003/200/44
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-177/03: Action brought on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm against the Commission of the European Communities

C 200/24               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          23.8.2003
Action brought on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Management                          tance tenders, the applicants claim that the Commission incor-
Consultants, Patrick Mc Mullin and Seamus O'Grady                          rectly awarded the contract to this consortium after the second
   against the Commission of the European Communities                      evaluation took place.
                          (Case T-160/03)                                  The applicants also claim that the Commission allowed the
                                                                           second evaluation committee to consider previous experience
                                                                           in TACIS projects in breach of paragraph 3 of Annex III of
                          (2003/C 200/43)                                  regulation 1279/1996 and discredited the previous successful
                                                                           work of the applicants.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Manage-
ment Consultants, Bray, Ireland, Patrick Mc Mullin, Bray,
Ireland and Seamus O'Grady, Bray, Ireland, represented by                  Action brought on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm
Mr B. O'Conner, Solicitor and Mr I. Carreño, lawyer.                         against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-177/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     require the Commission to pay the Applicants damages in                                       (2003/C 200/44)
      respect of the loss suffered by reason of the Commission's
      failure to properly manage the tender procedure of TACIS                                (Language of the case: German)
      project FDRUS 9902, all sums to be increased with
      compensatory interest, to be calculated as part of the
      damage, from the day on which the damage materialised;
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
—     order default interest payable at the appropriate rate on            nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      the Applicant's claim for damages;                                   European Communities on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm,
                                                                           residing in Brussels, Belgium, represented by C. Illig, lawyer.
—     order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to appoint the applicant to adminis-
                                                                                 trative grade A4 in the promotion scale with retroactive
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  effect from 1.1.2002;
                                                                           —     find, in the alternative, that the failure to grant seven
The applicants were among the ten short-listed companies
                                                                                 additional points when determining the seniority of the
invited to submit a tender for the TACIS project FDRUS
                                                                                 applicant was unlawful and that this error had an effect
9902. Due to a conflict of interest between another compe-
                                                                                 on the selection resulting from a comparative assessment
titor and a member of the evaluation committee, a first
                                                                                 of qualifications, as a result of which the applicant is,
evaluation in the latter's favour was cancelled. A second
                                                                                 with regard to service-, salary- and benefit rights, less well
evaluation followed, which resulted in the contract to imple-
                                                                                 off than if he had been upgraded to the A4 as of
ment the TACIS project being signed with this competitor.
                                                                                 1.1.2002;
The applicants claim that the Commission acted unlawfully                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
during the tender procedure FDRUS 9902. They submit they
have been unfairly denied the implementation of this contract
and have suffered substantial financial loss and damage
including the loss sustained in the tender procedure, loss of
profit, lost of profile and harm to their reputation.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit the Commission should, after cancelling
the first tender evaluation, have excluded the other consor-               The applicant relies on the allegedly erroneous application of
tium's tender from the second evaluation or have sanctioned it.            the Commission's promotion guidelines and on breach of the
                                                                           principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and adminis-
                                                                           trative legitimacy.
Due to the uncompliance of this consortium with the
Commission's rules and regulations governing technical assis-