EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/020/47
Case T-383/06: Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Icuna.com v Parliament
Case T-383/06: Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Icuna.com v Parliament
Case T-383/06: Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Icuna.com v Parliament
SL C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 31–32
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
SL C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 30–31
(BG, RO)
|
27.1.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 20/31 |
Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Icuna.com v Parliament
(Case T-383/06)
(2007/C 20/48)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Icuna.com SCRL (Braîne-le-Château, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey and P. de Bandt, lawyers)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul the decision of the European Parliament of 1 December 2006, accepting the tender of the firm MOSTRA and rejecting the applicant's tender within the framework of the call for tenders EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/2003; |
|
— |
declare that the Community is non-contractually liable and order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 58 700 as compensation for the costs incurred in the framework of the call for tenders, as well as an amount for non-pecuniary damage by way of damage to reputation, and appoint an expert to assess that damage. |
|
— |
in any event, order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant challenges the decision of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant's tender relating to the call for tenders EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003, lot 2: programme contents, with a view to the creation of a European Parliament web television channel. (1)
In support of its action, the applicant pleads, first, a manifest irregularity in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision, due to the lack of competence of the author of the measure, the infringement of Article 101 of the Financial Regulation (2) and the infringement of Article 149 of Regulation No 2342/2002. (3)
Secondly, the applicant claims that (a) the Parliament adopted a decision contrary to that initially issued on 7 August 2006 awarding it the contract, without giving reasons for this change, and (b) the selection criteria followed in the contested decision are not those which were applied in the context of the first decision of the Parliament, and are not defined as such in the call for tenders. The selection criteria contained therein, the principles of equal treatment and transparency and the duty to state reasons have therefore been contravened.
(1) Contract notice: ‘European Parliament web television channel’ (OJ 2006 S 87-091412)
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)
(3) 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)