Action brought on 12 August 2005 — ASTEC Global Consultancy/Commission

(Case T-310/05)

(2005/C 271/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): ASTEC Global Consultancy Limited (Dublin, Ireland) [represented by: B. O'Connor, solicitor and I. Carreño, lawyer]

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, acting as consortium leader, applied on 15 April 2005 for Lot 3 of the Framework contract in the context of a re-launch of the Commission procurement procedure EuropeAid//119860/C/SV/multi. One of the other members of the applicant's consortium was Austroconsult Ges.m.b.H. That company was also a partner in another consortium applying for the same lot. On 31 May 2005 Austroconsult formally withdrew from that other consortium.

By the contested Decision the Commission refused to short-list the applicant's application on the grounds that it did not comply with the Procurement Notice since Austroconsult was also present in another application.

In support of its request to annul the contested Decision the applicant contends that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements in procurement procedures, since any conflict of interest due to Austroconsult's participation in two consortiums had been resolved by its withdrawal from the other consortium. In the same context, the applicant alleges in the alternative that Austroconsult could not have been considered a valid member of the other consortium, since its formal letter in the application package was not dated.

The applicant further alleges that the Commission infringed the principles of equal treatment, sound administration and due diligence, as it failed to investigate Austroconsult's withdrawal from the other consortium, if it had doubts about it, and failed to inform the applicant of its concerns. The applicant considers that its exclusion without any further clarification was disproportionate and in violation of good administration.

Finally, the applicant alleges that by establishing a short-list of only six candidates and continuing the tender procedure, the Commission has infringed the rules set down in the tender notice requiring a minimum of eight candidates. It also considers that it has been discriminated against, in that in the original launch and in the first re-launch of the tender procedure, in both of which the applicant had been successful, the rule requiring a short list of at least eight candidates had been observed, contrary to what has been the case at the second re-launch, from which the applicant was excluded.