# C_2015198EN.01003901.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/39

---

Action brought on 25 March 2015 — Aanbestedingskalender a.o. v Commission

(Case T-138/15)

(2015/C 198/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Aanbestedingskalender BV (Ede, Netherlands); Negometrix BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); CTM Solution BV (Breukelen, Netherlands); Stillpoint Applications BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Huisinga Beheer BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: C. Dekker and L. Fiorilli, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare, in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the part of the European Commission’s Decision of 18 December 2014 SA.34646 (2014/NN) (ex 2012/CP) — The Netherlands E-procurement platform TenderNed finding that the activities of TenderNed qualify as services of (non-economic) general interest and that therefore the implementation and financing of TenderNed does not constitute State aid, is void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the part of the European Commission’s Decision of 18 December 2014 SA.34646 (2014/NN) (ex 2012/CP) — The Netherlands E-procurement platform TenderNed finding that the activities of TenderNed qualify as services of (non-economic) general interest and that therefore the implementation and financing of TenderNed does not constitute State aid, is void;

The Netherlands E-procurement platform TenderNed

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant; and

| — | take such further actions as the Court may deem appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such further actions as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the services of TenderNed qualify as services of general (non-economic) interest.






  — | The applicants claim that TenderNed’s activities are of an economic character and do not belong to the state prerogative because those services do not emanate from obligations provided by the EU procurement Directives, because TenderNed does not act in the capacity of a public authority, because the activities of TenderNed are not necessary to ensure compliance with the EU procurement Directives, because ensuring compliance with the obligations of the EU Procurement Directives can be achieved by other means and because the Dutch procurement law allows commercial initiatives on the market of e-procurement. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the services of TenderNed qualify as services of general (non-economic) interest.

—

The applicants claim that TenderNed’s activities are of an economic character and do not belong to the state prerogative because those services do not emanate from obligations provided by the EU procurement Directives, because TenderNed does not act in the capacity of a public authority, because the activities of TenderNed are not necessary to ensure compliance with the EU procurement Directives, because ensuring compliance with the obligations of the EU Procurement Directives can be achieved by other means and because the Dutch procurement law allows commercial initiatives on the market of e-procurement.

---