Action brought on 14 April 2006 - GLOBE v Commission

(Case T-114/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: GLOBE NV (Zandhoven, Belgium) (represented by: A. Abate, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the European Commission decision contained in the letter of 2 March 2006 from the Procurement Co-ordinator, Directorate D/3 of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office, concerning the project EuropeAid/122078/C/S/Multi, entitled 'Supply of a Pipeline Network Information System to the Central Asia Gas companies (Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)';

Determine the Commission's non-contractual liability with regard to the adoption of the decision referred to above;

Order the Commission to pay compensation for the loss caused to the applicant assessed at EUR 492 024.00 plus interest for late payment from the date of the judgment's publication;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant took part in the tendering procedure in respect of the project EuropeAid/122078/C/S/Multi, entitled 'Innovation to tender for Supply of a Pipeline Network Information System to the Central Asia Gas companies (Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)', which is part of the TACIS Programme 2002¹. By letter of 2 March 2006, the Commission notified the applicant that its tender had been unsuccessful because it was not the lowest and that the contract had been awarded to a competing undertaking. In this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision contained in that letter and compensation for the loss which it claims to have sustained as a result of the adoption of the contested decision.

The applicant relies on a number of pleas to dispute that decision.

First of all, it submits that in adopting the contested decision the Commission made major errors of assessment and that it contravened the Instructions to tenderers, rendering null and void the award of the contract to the successful tenderer. Under that plea, the applicant contends that the proposal accepted by the Commission does not comply with the technical specifications in the contract documents. It also criticises the Commission for extending the period for the submission of tenders and for having asked the applicant's competitor to change its tender in the light of the Corrigendum to the tender dossier, after the opening of tenders, which allowed the ultimately successful tenderer to amend its tender so as to make it the best offer. The applicant thus alleges a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that its proposal, the least expensive at the opening of tenders, was not ultimately successful.

Secondly, the applicant claims that by omitting to notify it, before taking the contested decision, of the grounds on which it proposed to change the order of precedence of the tenders set out at the public tender-opening session, the Commission deprived the applicant of the possibility to submit its view and, as a result, infringed its right to be heard.

The third plea put forward by the applicant relates to the Commission's alleged breach of the duty to give reasons, those provided being, according to the applicant, insufficient and contradictory.

By its fourth plea, the applicant alleges a breach of the principle of sound administration of justice in that, in its view, the Commission demonstrated negligence in its late communication of the results of the tender selection procedure and in its late replies to various letters from the applicant.

____________

¹ - Programme founded on Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 99/2000 of 29 December 1999 concerning the provision of assistance to the partner States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 1)