CELEX: C1999/281/56
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-181/99: Action brought on 9 August 1999 by Centro di Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio 74 against the Commission of the European Communities

C 281/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.10.1999
— failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the                  — annul and/or declare void the call for tenders, the invitation
    welfare and interests of officials;                                        and consequently the whole selection procedure, or, in any
                                                                               event, annul the procedure itself and/or declare it void,
— prejudice caused to the applicant as a result of his
    secondment to the Staff Representation unit, contrary to
    Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          in the alternative:
By adopting a reassignment decision having retroactive effect,
when there was no justification or need for such retroactivity            — establish and declare the Commission to be liable for the
and when that retroactivity did not correspond to the situation                losses and damage sufered by the applicant by reason of
in reality, and by attaching to that decision an artificial date on            and, in any event, as a result of its participation in the
which it was to come into effect, being 4 days prior to the                    procedure.
crucial date, the Commission indubitably caused the applicant
to suffer damage.
For the purposes of the 1998 promotion procedure, therefore,
the applicant was no longer attached to the Staff Represen-               Pleas in law and main arguments
tation unit, whereas, if the reassignment had officially taken
effect after 5 May 1997, he would have been certain, in the
context of the 1998 promotion procedure, of being promoted
by DG IX or, failing that, at least of being awarded priority             The applicant in this case is the research centre which devised
points which DG IV would have had to take into account                    the ‘PROSCAP’ project to support active citizenship in the
the following year. Consequently, the Commission failed to                Pisa area, submitted as number 15 under the European
comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare and                   Commission’s pilot action ‘Local capital for social purposes’.
interests of officials and perpetrated a manifest misuse of               By the contested decision the defendant rejected the project
powers.                                                                   claiming to have calculated that the operating costs of the
                                                                          ‘initial tender’ were more than 20 % of the total budget,
                                                                          contrary to the requirements of the rules applicable.
By failing to give reasons for the implicit decisions which it
adopted rejecting the applicant’s request and complaint, the
Commission infringed Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          In support of its claims the applicant submits that the operating
                                                                          costs of the project are not more than 18 % of the total amount
                                                                          of the budget requested. It is claimed in that connection that
                                                                          the Commission adopted the contested decision on the basis
                                                                          of irrelevant economic data deriving from the application file,
                                                                          thus breaching established rules for the tendering procedure.
                                                                          The defendant therefore excluded the applicant, erroneously
Action brought on 9 August 1999 by Centro di Ricerca e                    taking as the basis for its assessment of the final figure, not the
Documentazione Febbraio 74 against the Commission of                      project completed on 5 March 1999, but the application file
                  the European Communities                                submitted on 15 October 1999, which had the different
                                                                          purpose and object of providing the Commission with infor-
                        (Case T-181/99)                                   mation about the professional and financial suitability of the
                                                                          applicant body, the socio-economic background against which
                                                                          the project would be carried out and the possible quality
                        (1999/C 281/56)                                   of the mechanism proposed for the selection, control and
                                                                          management of individual appropriations.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 On this basis the applicant maintains that the contested
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                decision must be considered flawed and unlawful for breach
European Communities on 9 August 1999 by Centro di                        of procedural rules and of the duty of care in administrative
Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio 74, represented by Ugo                  proceedings, erroneous, illogical and not in conformity with
Mastelloni, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in               previous acts and decisions of the Commission itself.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Yves Prussen, 2, Place
Winston Churchill.
                                                                          It also submits that the invitation to tender and to submit
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               proposals under the pilot action ‘Local capital for social
                                                                          purposes’ did not in any way stipulate that possible flaws in
— annul and/or declare void the decision of the European                  the application file could constitute reasons for excluding one
    Commission — DG V — Employment and European                           of the tenderers from the procedure.
    Social Fund — Political development and coordination
    under Article 6 of the ESF, notified by formal letter 8096
    of 21 June 1999 to exclude the applicant from the
    tendering procedure for the pilot action ‘Local capital for
    social purposes’, and all connected and consequential acts
    prejudicial to the interests of the applicant,