Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2006/048/81

Case T-9/06: Action brought on 17 January 2006 — Equant Belgium v Commission

OJ C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 43–44 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.2.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/43

Action brought on 17 January 2006 — Equant Belgium v Commission

(Case T-9/06)

(2006/C 48/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Equant Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) [represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, T. Graf, lawyers]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—

Annul

(i)

the decision of the European Commission dated December 6, 2005 to suspend the signing of the contract identified in the Commission's earlier decision of November 3, 2005 relating to the award of the contract pursuant to the following procurement procedure: ‘Restricted invitation to tender No ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 Secured Trans European Services for Telematics between administrations (s-TESTA)’;

(ii)

the decision of the European Commission dated December 27, 2005 to reject the Offer submitted by Equant/HP in the framework of the Restricted invitation to tender No ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 ‘Secured Trans European Services for Telematics between administrations (s-TESTA)’ and to tacitly withdraw its decision in favour of Equant/HP dated November 3, 2005; and

(iii)

the decision of the European Commission communicated to the Applicant by the same letter of December 27, 2005 to select another tenderer for the award of the contract in the framework of the Restricted invitation to tender No. ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 ‘Secured Trans European Services for Telematics between administrations (s-TESTA)’;

—

grant any other relief that the Court considers appropriate in the circumstances; and, in any event;

—

order the Commission to pay Equant's legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, in conjunction with another company, submitted an offer to the Commission in the context of a procurement procedure relevant to the Commission's contract notice No. 2004/S 137-116821 ‘Lot 1 — Secured Trans European Services for Telematics between administrations (s-TESTA)’. By letter dated 3 November 2005 the Commission informed the applicant that its joint offer had been selected for the award of the contract. However, by letter dated 6 December 2005 the Commission informed the applicant that it had decided to suspend the signing of the contract, awaiting further examination of the offers. By a further letter, dated 27 December 2005, the Commission informed the applicant that it had decided to reject the applicant's joint offer on the grounds that it did not conform to the tendering specifications and to award the contract to another tenderer.

In support of its application to annul the above decisions, the applicant first of all disputes in detail the Commission's findings that certain components of its offer, more particularly its waiver of one-off installation charges for an initial two-year period, the inclusion of a five-year discount period in preparing prices and its volume discount on the monthly charges for turnkey access points, were contrary to the specifications. The applicant's position is that in identifying an alleged incompatibility the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and that the contested decisions are unlawful.

The applicant further submits that the Commission breached the principle of transparency by relying on an unsupported interpretation of its tendering specifications and that it breached Regulation 2342/2002 as well as the principles of equality, proportionality and good administration by failing to ask for clarifications or apply less restrictive remedies. The applicant finally alleges that the Commission also violated the principle of legitimate expectations as well as the rights of defence and the duty to state reasons for its decisions.

Top