Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 22 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-106/05)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Kostakopoulos, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- annul the Commission's decision not to short-list the applicant's application, filed in response to the International Restricted Tender EuropeAid/117579/C/SV/TR for the "Technical Assistance to improve the Information and Communication Technology System in the State Institute of Statistics of Turkey - Upgrading the Statistical System of Turkey"1 and to short-list other candidates;
- annul the decision to reject the applicant's request to review its decision communicated to the applicant by the Commission's letter dated 13 December 2004;
- order the Commission 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 an application in response to the Commission's International Restricted Tender EuropeAid/117579/C/SV/TR for the "Technical Assistance to improve the Information and Communication Technology System in the State Institute of Statistics of Turkey - Upgrading the Statistical System of Turkey". By the contested decision the applicant's application was not short-listed.
In support of its application to annul the contested decision the applicant contends that the defendant violated Regulation 1488/1996, the Financial Regulation2 and the regulation applying it, as well as Directive 92/503 by using evaluation criteria, that were not well specified in the call for tenders. According to the applicant, if the Commission intended to proceed to a comparative analysis of the candidates' capacities, as it appears to have done, then it should have noted so in the call for tenders.
The applicant also claims that the defendant committed manifest errors of appreciation in the evaluation of the bid it had submitted. The applicant contests the Commission's assessment of its technical capacity.
The applicant finally submits that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, in violation of Article 253 EC.
____________1 - OJ 2004/S 187-1588862 - Coucil Regulatio (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 Jue 2002 o the Fiacial Regulatio applicable to the geeral budget of the Europea Commuities, OJ L 248, 16/09/2002 p.1 3 - Council Directive 92/5/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 29, 24/7/1992 p. 1