You are on page 1of 2

C 217/50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.9.

2005

Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster to her status as an official and the non-material detriment
against the Commission of the European Communities resulting from that uncertainty;

7. order the Commission to pay the costs.


(Case T-249/05)

(2005/C 217/105) Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: Dutch) The applicant submitted an application for parental leave for
the period from 8 November 2004 until 7 May 2005. In
response, the Commission granted the applicant parental leave
from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-


nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the The applicant states that no formal refusal was received in
European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster, response to her request for parental leave for the period from 8
residing in Oetrange (Luxembourg), represented by W. H. A. M. November 2004 until 7 May 2005 and she concludes that her
van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer, with an address for service in request was implicitly rejected. She also states that, as she did
Luxembourg. not challenge that rejection and did not submit any other appli-
cation, she was in active service from 1 November 2004 until
30 April 2005 inclusive and is thus entitled to all benefits asso-
The applicant claims that the Court should: ciated therewith.

1. annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 6 April 2005;


In support of her application the applicant also submits that
the decision awarding parental leave from 1 November 2004
2. annul the decision on the award of parental leave of 1 until 30 April 2005 was adopted contrary to the principle of
November 2004 to 30 April 2005 inclusive and/or the equality, the principle of legal certainty, Article 42a of the Staff
salary slip for November 2004, and/or the Commission's Regulations and Articles 25, 26, 35, 36 and 62 of the Staff
decision of 30 November 2004 not to take account of the Regulations.
request for deferment or cancellation of the parental leave;

3. find that from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 inclu-


sive Mrs Duyster has all substantive rights connected with
the active service of an official and therefore, inter alia,
payment according to her grade and step must be made to
her with retroactive effect;
Action brought on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics
4. find that this payment must be made with interest for late S.A. against the Office for Official Publications of the
payment; European Communities

5. find that parental leave with regard to her son may still be
requested (even if, after the date when the judgment of the (Case T-250/05)
Court becomes effective, he is older than 12 years old or
almost older than 12 years old) since the failure to approve
the request submitted is the Commission's fault; alterna-
(2005/C 217/106)
tively, that, since the inability to take up parental leave in
regard to her son is the fault of the Commission compensa-
tion must be paid for this corresponding to the loss of bene-
fits for parental leave, insurance, seniority, the accrual of (Language of the case: English)
pension; appraisal reports and promotion opportunities,
which can be estimated at a total of EUR 27 000; or, in the
further alternative, that damages of EUR 800 per month
over the period not taken up in respect of parental leave for
her son shall be paid for loss of parental benefit, EUR 100
for loss of insurance, EUR 1 200 for loss of pension rights; An action against the Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 2005 by
6. find that damages of EUR 2 500 must be paid to her as European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), repre-
compensation for the uncertainty caused to Mrs Duyster as sented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.
3.9.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/51

The applicant claims that the Court should: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estab-
elecimento de Ensino Particular, SA against the Commis-
sion of the European Communities
— annul the decision of the OPOCE, to evaluate the applicant's
bid as not successful and award the contract to the
successful contractor; (Case T-251/05)

— order the OPOCE to pay the applicant's legal and other (2005/C 217/107)
costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Appli-
cation, even if the current Application is rejected.
(Language of the case: Portuguese)

Pleas in law and main arguments


An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso —
Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA, established in Lisbon,
The applicant company filed a bid in response to the OPOCE's represented by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers.
call for tenders No. 6019-1 for the AProvision of Services in
Relation to the Collection, Production and Dissemination of
Electronic Publications, in particular the Supplement to the The applicant claims that the Court should:
Official Journal of the European Union (OJS)@. By the
contested decision the applicant's bid was rejected and the 1. annul decision C(2005)1236 of the Commission of the
contract awarded to another bidder. European Communities of 14 April 2005 ‘reducing the
amount of the assistance granted by the European Social
Fund to Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particu-
lar, Lda in accordance with the Commission's Decision
In support of its application the applicant contends that the C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989’;
contested decision was taken in violation of the principle of
non-discrimination since the OPOCE failed to take action to
2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
investigate and remedy a problem brought to its attention by
the applicant, namely that only a very limited number of
companies producing CD-ROMs and located inside an approxi-
mate two-hours range from Luxembourg could supply the
requested quantity within the framework imposed by the call Pleas in law and main arguments
for tenders, and that in this way tenderers were obliged to
produce bids in collaboration with those companies and there-
fore be linked with them on price and quality issues. According Infringement of essential procedural requirements in that the
to the applicant several alternatives existed but OPOCE failed Commission's decision procedure does not satisfy the formal
to take any action and this led to a situation where only one requirements and in that insufficient justification is provided
bid could be accepted as fulfilling the technical evaluation for the contested decision;
criteria.

Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the


protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the
The applicant further invokes two alleged evident errors of contested decision is, to the applicant's detriment, at variance
assessment of the Evaluation Report, namely mistakenly consid- with the earlier act attesting to the factual and accounting accu-
ering that the price offered by the applicant was some EUR racy of the documents produced by the applicant with its
800 000 higher than it actually was and noting, also erro- request for payment of the balance certified by it;
neously, that the production did not seem realizable and that
there was no information in the tender with regard to the CD-
ROM. Manifest error in the assessment of the documentary evidence
of expenditure produced by Mediocurso; and

Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is Infringement of the principle of proportionality, with regard to
vitiated by a failure to provide pertinent information and to the grounds of fact and law put forward in support of the
state reasons. reduction of assistance which is the subject-matter of the
contested decision.