1.5.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/19

(Case T-57/09)

2009/C 102/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alfastar Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—annul the Council’s decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open call for Tender UCA-218-07 for the provision of “Technical maintenance — help desk and on site intervention services for the PC’s, printers and peripherals of the general secretariat of the Council” communicated to the applicant by letter dated 1 December 2008 and all further related decisions of the Council including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

—order the Council to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 2 937 902 or the proportion of the above amount according to the date of annulment of the above decision of the Council;

—order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender UCA-218-07 for the provision of “Technical maintenance — help desk and on site intervention services for the PC’s, printers and peripherals of the general secretariat of the Council” and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.

In support of its claims the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

First, it argues that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment concerning: the absence of certification of the winning tenderer, the absence of NATO security clearance of the personnel of the winning tenderer, the fact that the winning tenderer did not dispose of the personnel offered, the qualifications of the personnel of the winning tenderer as opposed to those of the applicant, the knowledge transfer marks and the evaluation of the number of staff proposed by the tenderers.

Second, the applicant claims that the defendant failed to observe its obligations for equal treatment of the candidates and transparency.

Third, it submits that the call for tender included numerous inconsistencies and inaccurate information.

Last, the applicant contends that the defendant infringed its obligation to motivate its acts.

* * *

(1) OJ 2008/S 91-122796