Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 29 July 2004 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-303/04)

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 29 July 2004 by European Dynamics SA, Athens, Greece, represented by Mr S. Pappas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the Commission's Contract Notice 2003/S249-221337 ESP-DIMA;

-    annul the Commission's call for tenderers PO/2003/192 (ESP-DIMA);

-    annul the Commission's Decision of 4 June 2004 ranking the offer of European Dynamic's consortium only second after the first successful tenderer;

-    annul the Commission's Decision of 14 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's appeals against the award of the tender;

-    order the Commission to pay European Dynamic's legal and other fees and expenses incurred in connexion with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is part of a consortium that was the successful tenderer as service provider for ESP Lot 5, web applications. ESP Lot 4, Data/Information management applications, was awarded to another consortium.

According to the applicant, the tender contested in the present application, ESP-DIMA, was based on the wrong assumption that the provision of services for data and information management constitutes a new market and that the use of ESP Lot 4 had exceeded all expectations. The applicant submits that the Commission has wrongly allocated work to ESP Lot 4 that, according to the applicant, actually fell within ESP Lot 5. The applicant states that, as a result, the Commission had to increase the budget forecast for ESP Lot 4 and issue a new tender ESP-DIMA while the budget used for ESP Lot 5 remained behind the provisions.

The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement in that at least one member of the evaluation committee of the contested tender had a conflict of interest with the applicant.

Finally, the applicant claims that its ranking as second successful tenderer for ESP-DIMA is not sufficiently justified. The applicant also submits that the Commission refused to disclose information regarding the evaluation report.

____________