Action brought on 29 December 2010 - Castiglioni v Commission

(Case T-591/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Castiglioni Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: G. Turri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested measures, which are better described in the present application, by declaring them null and void and, therefore, order the European Commission to compensate for damage in a particular form, which may include a declaration that any contract which may have been entered into between the Commission and the successful tenderers was invalid, null and void or ineffective;

in the alternative, annul the contested measures, which are better described in the present application, by declaring them null and void and, therefore, order the European Commission to compensate for the damage, including what is known as 'curricular damage', suffered by Castiglioni Srl in a commensurate amount to be quantified in the course of the proceedings, together with interest and monetary indexation to the date of actual payment;

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on three grounds in support of its application:

First ground, relating to infringement of Article 137(4) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1), infringement of the contract notice and subsequent clarifications, and failure to state reasons.

It is submitted in this connection that the applicant has demonstrated that it possesses all the standard minimum capacity levels required in the contract notice and the fact that possession of the minimum requirements is demonstrated in part directly and partly in reliance on the capacities of other entities is totally irrelevant, given that reliance on the capacities of other entities is expressly contemplated in the rules governing the present case. The failure to evaluate the tender submitted by the applicant is therefore unlawful.

Second ground, relating to infringement of Article 148(3) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, and failure to state reasons.

It is submitted in this connection that, even if it had been minded to conclude that the documents submitted by the applicant for the purpose of demonstrating that it possessed Standard ST3 were lacking in clarity, the contracting authority should have applied Article 148(3) of Regulation No 2342/2002.

Third ground, relating to the illegality of the contract notice.

It is submitted in this connection that if, which is disputed, it is held that justification for the contracting authority's position is to be found in the contact notice, the applicant challenges that notice, in reliance on the same complaints set out above in connection with the first ground.

____________