You are on page 1of 1

29.8.

2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/43

Action brought on 18 June 2009 — Fedecom v Action brought on 16 June 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v
Commission Commission

(Case T-243/09) (Case T-247/09)

(2009/C 205/78) (2009/C 205/79)

Language of the case: French Language of the case: English

Parties Parties
Applicant: Fédération de l’Organisation Économique Fruits et Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepi­
Légumes (Fedecom) (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Galvez, koinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
lawyer) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities


Form of order sought
— Annul the contested decision on the basis of the fourth
paragraph of Article 230 EC;
Form of order sought
— Order the Commission to pay all the costs. — annul the Commission’s decision to reject the bid of the
applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders
AO 10186 for the ‘Production and dissemination of the
Pleas in law and main arguments Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union:
TED website, OJS DVD-ROM and related Offline and Online
The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision media’ (OJ 2009/S 2-001445), communicated to the
C(2009) 203 final of 28 January 2009, (1) by which the applicant by a letter dated 7 April 2009, and all further
Commission had declared incompatible with the common decisions of the Commission including the one to award
market the State aid granted by the French Republic to fruit the contract to the successful contractor;
and vegetable producers in the context of ‘contingency plans’
aimed at facilitating the marketing of agricultural products
harvested in France and had instructed the French Republic to
recover the aid in question.
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s damages
suffered on account of the tendering procedure in
In support of its claim, the applicant raises three pleas in law question for an amount of EUR 1 490 215,58;
alleging:

— disregard of the concept of State aid within the meaning of


Article 87(1) EC, since the Commission took the view that — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and
the voluntary contributions paid by the producers in the expenses incurred in connection with this application, even
context of contingency plans (sectoral contributions) if the current application is rejected.
constitute State aid;

— disregard of the provisions of Article 87(3) EC, since,


without carrying out an in-depth analysis of each Pleas in law and main arguments
contingency plan, the Commission took the view that the
measures implemented as part of the contingency plans In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the
were not compatible with the common market; defendant’s decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a
call for an open tender for services of production and dissemi­
nation of the Supplement to the Official Journal of the
— breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the European Union: TED website, OJS DVD-ROM and related
Commission’s lack of action for a period of 10 years, when Offline and Online media (AO 10186) and to award the
it must of necessity have been aware of the existence of the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further
contingency plans, gave rise to expectations on the part of requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of
the producers as to the regularity of the contingency plans. the tender procedure.

(1) OJ L 127, p. 11.


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