36The Council considers that the applicant's claim is unfounded and, in the alternative, that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. It maintains that it has committed none of the infringements alleged and that, in any event, those ‘infringements do not constitute sufficiently serious breaches’ within the meaning of the case-law. In that regard, it recalls that, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-352/98 P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291, it is only where the Member State or the institution in question has only considerably reduced, or even no, discretion that the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a breach sufficiently serious to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community under Article 288 EC. Furthermore, it is settled case-law that, like the other institutions, the Council has a wide discretion in assessing the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of the decision awarding a contract following an invitation to tender and the Court's review should be limited to checking that there has been no serious and manifest error (Case 56/77 Agence européenne d'intérims v Commission [1978] ECR 2215, paragraph 20, Case T-19/95 Adia interim v Commission [1996] ECR II-321, paragraph 49, Case T-203/96 Embassy Limousines ÔC Services v Parliament [1998] ECR II-4239, paragraph 56, and Case T-139/99 AICS v Parliament [2000] ECR II-2849).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.