Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

    (Case T-250/05)

    Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the decision of the OPOCE, to evaluate the applicant(s bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

-    order the OPOCE to pay the applicant(s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Application, even if the current Application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company filed a bid in response to the OPOCE(s call for tenders No. 6019-1 for the (Provision of Services in Relation to the Collection, Production and Dissemination of Electronic Publications, in particular the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJS)(. By the contested decision the applicant(s bid was rejected and the contract awarded to another bidder.

In support of its application the applicant contends that the contested decision was taken in violation of the principle of non-discrimination since the OPOCE failed to take action to investigate and remedy a problem brought to its attention by the applicant, namely that only a very limited number of companies producing CD-ROMs and located inside an approximate two-hours range from Luxembourg could supply the requested quantity within the framework imposed by the call for tenders, and that in this way tenderers were obliged to produce bids in collaboration with those companies and therefore be linked with them on price and quality issues. According to the applicant several alternatives existed but OPOCE failed to take any action and this led to a situation where only one bid could be accepted as fulfilling the technical evaluation criteria.

The applicant further invokes two alleged evident errors of assessment of the Evaluation Report, namely mistakenly considering that the price offered by the applicant was some 800,000 Euros higher than it actually was and noting, also erroneously, that the production did not seem realizable and that there was no information in the tender with regard to the CD-ROM.

Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to provide pertinent information and to state reasons.

____________