Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 27/11/2008 - Unity OSG FZE/Conseil et EUPOL Afghanistan

(Case T-511/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unity OSG FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: C. Bryant and J. McEwen, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan ("EUPOL Afghanistan")

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan ("EUPOL Afghanistan") (i) to reject the applicant's tender in relation to the contract for provision of guarding and close protection services in Afghanistan, (ii) to award the contract to another tenderer as communicated to the applicant by letter of 23 November 2008;

order the defendant to bear the applicant's costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 19 December 2007, the applicant entered into a contract with the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan¹ ("EUPOL Afghanistan") for the provision of security services. In September 2008, EUPOL Afghanistan issued a public procurement notice concerning the provision of guarding and close protection services which was published² on the European Commission's website in relation to the "EuropeAid" programme and in accordance to the provisions of Title V of Part One of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002³ ("the Financial Regulation") and the detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation contained in Commission Regulation 2342/2002⁴.

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of EUPOL Afghanistan of 23 November 2008, by which the applicant was informed that its tender had not been successful and that the contract would be awarded to Armor Group, on the basis of the following grounds:

First, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination provided for in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation.

Second, the applicant submits that the conditions applicable to contacts between the contracting authority and tenderers during the procurement process as set out in Article 99 of the Financial Regulation and in Articles 120(2)(d) and 148 of the Implementing Rules have been infringed.

Third, the applicant contends that the requirement to advertise a contract opportunity first in the Official Journal of the European Union, before being advertised elsewhere, as set out in Article 121 of the Implementing Rules, was infringed. According to the applicant, this requirement was infringed since the contract was advertised on the EuropAid website first, rather than in the Official Journal.

Fourth, the applicant submits that the requirement to respect the minimum time-limits under the accelerated restricted procedure laid down in Article 142(1) of the Financial Regulation has been infringed.

Fifth, the applicant claims that the defendant failed to respect the requirement set out in Article 158(a) of the Implementing Rules, for a standstill period between the decision on contract award and signature of the contract. In addition, the applicant puts forward that the defendant failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons, in accordance with Article 253 EC.

____________

¹ - Established on 30 May 2007, pursuant to Council Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP (OJ 2007 L 139, p.33)

² - The notice was published in the supplement to the Official Journal of 7 October 2008, 2008/S 194-255613

³ - OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1

⁴ - OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1