Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 21 November 2002 by European Dynamics against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-345/02)

    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 21 November 2002 by European Dynamics (Athens), represented by W. Knapp, Rechtsanwalt, and D. Spanou, Advocate.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

- annul the Commission's (EUROSTAT) decision to eliminate European Dynamics from the procurement procedure for the Call for Tenders 2002/S 106-083279 - Lot 1 for the "Further development of the Collaborative Software CIRCA";

- order the Commission (EUROSTAT) to evaluate the tender submitted by European Dynamics in the above mentioned procurement procedure and allow European Dynamics to participate fully and on the same basis as all the other tenderers;

- order the Commission to pay European Dynamics' legal and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is a company involved in the area of information technology and communications. It participated in the Call for Tenders 2002/S 106 -083279, for "Eurostat information systems: information and communication technologies for the Community statistical system" and, more particularly, Lot 1 of the Call for Tenders, "further development of the collaborative software CIRCA". The applicant's tender was rejected by the defendant because of the absence of details concerning the educational and professional qualifications in the curriculum vitae of at least one of the experts, in a team of 27 persons.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the decision to reject its tender breaches the principle of proportionality. The tender was rejected because of the absence of details in one curriculum vitae, whereas the tender requirements referred in broad and general terms to the experience of the team, without any further specification.

The applicant furthermore alleges that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the defendant failed to exercise its power to seek clarification on this matter and therefore breached its duty of care and the principle of good administration.

The applicant also claims that by not seeking clarification and thereby eliminating the applicant's tender, the defendant did not respect the equal treatment of tenderers. According to the applicant, an evaluation committee does not enjoy an unfettered discretion to seek or not to seek clarification concerning an individual tender regardless of objective considerations and free from judicial supervision.

The applicant finally submits that the defendant committed serious procedural irregularities. More particularly, the defendant did not respect the principle of good administration, the right of parties to be heard and the duty to state reasons for its decisions.

____________