Action brought on 22 September 2006 — DC-HADLER NETWORKS v Commission

(Case T-264/06)

(2006/C 294/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: DC-HADLER NETWORKS (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Muller, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present action took part in the invitation to tender procedure in respect of the project Europe Aid/122742/C/SUP/RE entitled ‘Social Integration of the Disabled in Privolzhsky Federal Okrug — Supply of social integration and rehabilitation-related equipment for the disabled and IT and office equipment for the information network’, which is part of the Tacis national action Programme 2003 (1). By letter of 20 June 2006, the Commission notified the applicant that its tender had been successful for Lots 1, 2 and 4. However, on 14 July the Commission sent the applicant a letter informing it that the contracting authority had decided to annul the tender procedure and not to sign the contract with it on the basis that there was insufficient competition. In the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision contained in that letter.

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its application.

The first plea alleges infringement of an essential procedural requirement in that, according to the applicant, the reasons put forward by the Commission in support of its decision ultimately not to award it the contract cannot be regarded as satisfactory. It maintains that it was only when it requested the Commission to do so, in a letter dated 17 July 2006, that the latter clarified, by letter of 27 July 2006, that its decision was based on Article 101 of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 (2). In the applicant's opinion, it is not possible to ascertain from the reasons put forward by the Commission in support of the contested decision what prompted it to go back on its earlier decision to award the applicant the contract. It submits that that lack of precision in the Commission's reasoning is all the more significant as the Commission resiled from its earlier official position.

The second plea alleges infringement of Article 253 EC. The applicant considers that, by withdrawing the invitation to tender on the ground of insufficient competition, the Commission committed a manifest and serious error by putting forward an imprecise and incomplete set of reasons since, on previous occasions, the applicant has obtained a number of contracts in cases where it was the only tenderer.

(1)  Programme based 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).

(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).