do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-95/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 February 2010 — Strong Segurança SA v Município de Sintra, Securitas-Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança
Date: 2010-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, award of contract, interpretation of the law, public contract, services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2010113EN.01002801.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 February 2010 — Strong Segurança SA v Município de Sintra, Securitas-Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança
(Case C-95/10)
2010/C 113/43
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Strong Segurança, SA

Respondent: Município de Sintra, Securitas-Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 47 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 directly applicable in the domestic legal order as from 31 January 2006, in the sense that it confers on individuals a right on which they can rely in proceedings against organs of the Portuguese authorities?










2.


If so, is that principle applicable, despite the provision contained in Article 21 of that Directive, to contracts which have as their object services referred to in Annex II B?






(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
Case C-97/10, Case C-98/10, Case C-99/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (France) lodged on 22 February 2010 — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Bourdil — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Baba-Pom’
Date: 2010-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, health insurance, insurance company, interpretation of the law








C_2010113EN.01002901.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/29





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (France) lodged on 22 February 2010 — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Bourdil — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Baba-Pom’
((Case C-97/10) - (Case C-98/10) - (Case C-99/10))
2010/C 113/45
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (Landes)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AG2R Prévoyance

Defendants: SARL Bourdil, SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie, SARL Baba-Pom’

Question referred

Does an extensive collective agreement granting an exclusive right to the management of a single scheme for the supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs (in this case, to AG2R Prévoyance) infringe the provisions of Article 82 of the EC Treaty where that agreement does not provide for and even expressly excludes any waiver of affiliation to that scheme (in so far as the Community competition rules do not obstruct the performance of the tasks assigned to AG2R Prévoyance, entrusted with the scheme)?
Case T-84/10: Action brought on 22 February 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission
Date: 2010-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, European Regional Development Fund, Italy, action for annulment (EU)








C_2010113EN.01005801.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/58





Action brought on 22 February 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission
(Case T-84/10)
2010/C 113/89
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Regione Puglia (Bari, Italy) (represented by: F. Brunelli, lawyer, A. Aloia, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision.










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs, including a fixed amount for general costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Regione Puglia claims that the Court should annul Decision No C(2009) 10350 of the European Commission of 22 December 2009, concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocated to the operational programme POR Puglia Obiettivo 1 2000-2006, and uphold only the provision made in Article 4 of that decision.
In support of its claims, the Regione Puglia relies on precise objections raised by it in relation to the accuracy and validity of the complaints made against it by the Commission, and on the unlawfulness and erroneous nature of the methods used by the Commission for evaluating the results of the audits carried out in 2007 and 2009.
More specifically, the Regione Puglia submits that the decision was taken notwithstanding that:






—


the checks performed by the Commission and serving as a basis for the decision were not carried out appropriately and on time;










—


the results arrived at by the Commission in respect of each priority and each measure, and in respect of each of the checks carried out, are not confirmed or supported by the documents lodged and examined and, in some cases, those results were obtained without the necessary consideration of the legislation applicable to the sector;










—


in any event, as regards methodology, the evaluations carried out are not suitable for confirming and corroborating the Commission’s conclusions, which, moreover, appear presented as self-evident in so far as they are not sufficiently reasoned and/or proved.




Nonetheless, the Commission took no account whatsoever of:






—


the various results of the audits performed by the European Court of Auditors and the Ministry for the Economy and Finance of the Italian Republic;










—


the observations and objections submitted from time to time by the Regione Puglia in a detailed, substantiated and timely manner, in response to the complaints and requests made by the Commission; and, furthermore,










—


the Commission failed in its duty of cooperation which must inform the relationships between itself and the recipient of the funding, reaching decisions and making findings before it had even received and examined the responses and clarifications which it itself had sought from the Regione Puglia.