ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
27 September 2012 (1)
(Action for annulment – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Manifest inadmissibility – Injunction)
In Case T-318/12,
Communicaid Group Limited, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by N. Alun-Jones, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
European Commission,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of Commission’s decision of 30 May 2012 to reject the applicant’s tender submitted for Lot 3 (Spanish) pursuant to a contract notice concerning language training for staff at the European Union (EU) institutions, bodies and agencies in Brussels (OJ 2012/S 45‑072734),
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of S. Papasavvas (rapporteur), President, V. Vadapalas and K. O’Higgins, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure and form of order sought by the applicant
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 12 July 2012, the applicant brought the present action.
2 The applicant claims that the General Court should:
– annul the Commission’s decision of 30 May 2012;
– order the Commission to review the applicant’s tender;
– order the Commission to include the applicant’s tender in the process as if it had not been rejected or suspend the tender procedure, and
– order the Commission to pay the costs.
Law
3 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, where the action is manifestly inadmissible the General Court may, without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action by a reasoned order.
4 In the present case, the General Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to that article, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
5 First, as regards the second and third heads of claim put forward by the applicant requesting in substance that directions be issued to the Commission, it is to be observed that when exercising judicial review of legality under Article 263 TFEU, the General Court has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union or to assume their role (see, inter alia, Joined Cases T‑374/94, T‑375/94, T‑384/94 and T‑388/94 European Night Services and Others v Commission [1998] ECR II‑3141, paragraph 53).
6 Accordingly, the second and third heads of claim must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.
7 Second, as regards the first head of claim by which the applicant requests the annulment of the Commission’s decision, it must be noted that, under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which applies to the procedure before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, and under Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, the application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. That information must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the General Court to rule on the application, if necessary, without any further information. In order to ensure legal certainty and sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic matters of law and fact relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (order in Case T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II‑523, paragraph 20; order in Case T‑154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II‑1703, paragraph 49; and Case T‑277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999] ECR II‑1825, paragraph 29).
8 In the present case, it is to be observed that the application provides solely a blurred factual background of the dispute and is not supported by any legal arguments. Indeed, the applicant merely states that the Commission’s decision should be annulled since the applicant’s tender was wrongly excluded due to an alleged typographical error, without sufficiently stating the subject-matter of the proceedings and the pleas in law on which they are based.
9 Consequently, as regards the first head of claim, the application does not satisfy the abovementioned minimum requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure and, thus, must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.
10 It follows from the above considerations that the present action must be dismissed in its entirety as manifestly inadmissible and there is no need for it to be served on the defendant.
Costs
11 As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear its own costs pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall pay its own costs.
Luxembourg, 27 September 2012.