Action brought on 9 August 2010 - Cosepuri v EFSA

(Case T-339/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cosepuri Soc. coop. p.a. (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: F. Fiorenza, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

Annul the tender procedure to the extent that it provides for the evaluation of the financial bids to be conducted in secret;

Annul the decision awarding the contract to the company ANME and any act resulting therefrom;

Order EFSA to pay damages to Cosepuri;

Order EFSA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By contract notice dated 1 March 2010, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 13 March 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) launched an open tender procedure for the award of a shuttle service contract in Italy and Europe for a period of 48 months, with an estimated value of EUR 4 000 000, defining as the award criterion the most economically advantageous tender in terms of the criteria stated in the specifications (Document B [in annex to the application]). The applicant company submitted its tender, but the contract in question was awarded to another company.

By the present application, the applicant contests that decision.

By its first plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 89 of Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 ¹ and infringement of the principles of sound administration, transparency, the requirement for publicity and the right of access, because of the failure to conduct in public the procedures for the opening of the technical bids and the awarding of points for the financial bid. In that connection, it is submitted that the price bid cannot be regarded as confidential information.

By its second plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 100 of Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002, infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, ² infringement of the duty to state reasons, the obligation of transparency and of the right of access to documents, since access to the documents was restricted after the contract was awarded, on the grounds that information such as the financial bid and public documents such as vehicle licences were confidential. In that connection, it is argued that the failure to disclose the price bid by the successful tenderer means that the acts were inadequately reasoned.

By its third plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 100 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002, infringement of the specifications and a manifest error of reasoning on account of the errors made by the tenders committee in the evaluation of the financial bids.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

² - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).