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 62012TN0200

Case T-200/12: Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Shannon Free Airport Development v Commission

IO C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 22–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.8.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/22

Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Shannon Free Airport Development v Commission

(Case T-200/12)

2012/C 258/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shannon Free Airport Development Co. Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the Contracts and Finance Section of the European Union Delegation to Ukraine, dated 28 February 2012, contested in the present action, given in the framework of tender EuropeAid/131567/C/SER/UA ‘Crimean tourism diversification and support project’; as well as subsequent decisions of the same authority and of the director of the DG Development of the European Commission;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to state reasons, as:

—

Case-law and legislation impose a duty on the defendant to elaborate on the advantages of the selected tender clearly, instead of merely contesting the evidence the applicant brings forward; a good administration has to examine the truth of it and address the allegations correctly, all the more so when various aggravating factors intensify this requirement.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to respect the applicable procedure, as:

—

The evaluation procedure the Evaluation Committee was to follow was vitiated by irregularities, of which the defendant was aware and did not take into account prior to publishing the results. Thus, the subsequent decisions are unlawful, to the extent that they are based on the result of these irregularities.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of equal treatment and misuse of power, as:

—

The illegal procedure was only applied in the case of the consortium the applicant was part of, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. It also appears that the sole purpose of the illegal procedure was to eliminate the applicant’s consortium from the first place in the evaluation list.
Top