Action brought on 19 April 2010 - CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice

(Case T-170/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Computer Task Group Luxembourg PSF SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decisions taken by the Court of Justice in the context of the European public contract 'AO 008/2009: 1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT and telephone systems, call centre, end user hardware management', specifically:

the decision of the tender opening board of 9 February 2010 to reject the tender of CTG CONSORTIUM because it was 'lodged out of time';

-     the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union to award the contract to another tenderer (not dated and unknown at that date to the applicant);

-    the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirming the rejection of the tender of CTG CONSORTIUM of 05/03/2010;

declare the non-contractual liability of the European Union and order the Court of Justice to compensate the applicant for all the loss incurred on account of the contested decisions and appoint an expert to evaluate that loss;

order the Court of Justice to pay all the costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant is seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the tender opening board of 9 February 2010, rejecting the applicant's offer because it was lodged out of time, in the context of the tendering procedure concerning 1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT systems, call centre, end user hardware management (OJ 2009/S 217-312292), and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, an application for damages.

In support of its appeal, the applicant puts forward four pleas alleging:

infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of equal treatment of tenderers and the principle of freedom of competition, by imposing a final time for posting the tenders, in addition to the final date for sending them;

infringement of the obligation to reply to requests for information sent in due time to the contracting authority;

infringement of the obligation to inform rejected tenderers of the grounds on which the rejection of their tender was based, the name of the successful tenderer and information as to the means of appeal;

the European Union's non-contractual liability.

____________