do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-561/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium
Date: 2012-12-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, directive (EU), equal treatment, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, services contract, simplification of formalities, technical standard, works contract








C_2013038EN.01001302.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium
(Case C-561/12)
2013/C 38/17
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS

Defendant: Rahandusministeerium

Third Party: Maanteeamet

Questions referred







(a)


Must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) 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 be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority to conduct negotiations with tenderers on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract?










(b)


If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders to alter the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications, provided that the subject-matter of the contract is not altered and equal treatment of all tenderers is ensured?










(c)


If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as meaning that a rule which excludes alteration of the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders is contrary to that provision?










(d)


If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as prohibiting the contracting authority from accepting as the best tender a tender which at the end of the negotiations does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
Case F-109/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Scheidemann v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Interinstitutional transfer during the promotion exercise during which the civil servant was eligible for promotion in her institution of origin — Application to benefit from a retroactive promotion — Specific rejection decision which took effect after the implicit decision — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Out of time — Out of time)
Date: 2012-12-05
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, exchange of information, interinstitutional relations (EU), labour mobility, promotion








C_2013046EN.01003203.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/32





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Scheidemann v Parliament
(Case F-109/12)
(Civil service - Officials - Interinstitutional transfer during the promotion exercise during which the civil servant was eligible for promotion in her institution of origin - Application to benefit from a retroactive promotion - Specific rejection decision which took effect after the implicit decision - Time-limit for lodging a complaint - Out of time - Out of time)
2013/C 46/65
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Sabine Scheidemann (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Re:

Civil service — Application to annul the decision of the Parliament to reject the applicant’s application to be promoted retroactively from 1 January 2010.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;










2.


Mrs Scheidemann shall bear her own costs.
Case T-421/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2012 — Qualitest v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2012-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, capital movement, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation








C_2013026EN.01004301.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/43





Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2012 — Qualitest v Council
(Case T-421/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
2013/C 26/82
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Qualitest FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Marhic and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls, in so far as they concern Qualitest FZE:






—


Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;










—


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;










—


Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;














2.


Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/299 as regards Qualitest until the annulment of Implementing Regulation No 503/2011 and Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Qualitest;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.