do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-10/17: Action brought on 9 January 2017 — Proof IT v EIGE
Date: 2017-01-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, damages, equal treatment, information system, information technology industry, protectionism, provision of services, services contract, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2017078EN.01003502.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/35





Action brought on 9 January 2017 — Proof IT v EIGE
(Case T-10/17)
(2017/C 078/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality adopted in the procurement procedure for the award of a ‘Framework contract for online services’ EIGE/2016/OPER/03-Lot 1, notified to the applicant by letter of 28 October 2016, to rank the applicant’s tender in second place and to award the framework contract for lot 1 to a third company;










—


award damages to the applicant for loss of opportunity and/or for loss of the contract itself in the amount of EUR 72 270;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and transparency, the contract award criteria being imprecise and the evaluation process lacking transparency, thus conferring on the defendant unrestricted freedom of choice as regards awarding of the contract in question.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed manifest errors of assessment in evaluating the applicant’s tender, which, once corrected, would lead to a different result of the procurement procedure, i.e. the applicant’s tender should have been ranked first and the framework contract awarded to the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment by interpreting the award criteria in such a way that the third company concerned benefited from the knowledge acquired during performance of a previous similar contract with EIGE.
Case C-9/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Maria Tirkkonen
Date: 2017-01-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: invitation to tender, public institution, services contract, tendering








C_2017086EN.01001701.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Maria Tirkkonen
(Case C-9/17)
(2017/C 086/21)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Maria Tirkkonen

Other party: Maaseutuvirasto

Question referred

Is Article 1(2)(a) of Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘public contract’ within the meaning of that directive encompasses a scheme






—


by which a public body seeks to obtain services in the market for a contractual period limited in advance by entering into contracts, subject to the conditions of a draft framework agreement annexed to the invitation to tender, with all economic operators who meet the individual requirements laid down in the tender documents in regard to the suitability of the offeror and to the service offered, and pass an examination more particularly described in the invitation to tender, and










—


which can no longer be joined during the currency of the contract?






(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).
Appointment of the Registrar
Date: 2017-01-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








C_2017006EN.01000201.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/2





Appointment of the Registrar
(2017/C 006/02)
The term of office of Mr Emmanuel Coulon, Registrar of the General Court of the European Union, will expire on 5 October 2017.
The General Court has decided, on 16 November 2016, to renew the term of office of Mr Emmanuel Coulon, in accordance with Article 32(4) of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from 6 October 2017 to 5 October 2023 inclusive.
Case C-8/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA
Date: 2017-01-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT rate, tax collection, tax inspection, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2017095EN.01000501.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA
(Case C-8/17)
(2017/C 095/11)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA

Defendant: Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

Questions referred







1.


Does Directive 219/112/EC, (1) and in particular Articles 63, 167, 168, 178, 179, 180, 182 and 219 thereof, and the principle of neutrality, preclude legislation which has the result that, in circumstances where the seller of the goods, liable for VAT, (i) was subject to a tax inspection which found that the VAT rate that he applied in a given situation was less than the due rate, (ii) paid to the State the additional tax and (iii) seeks to obtain the respective payment from the purchaser, also liable for VAT, the time period for the latter to be able to deduct that additional tax is calculated from the date of issue of the initial invoices and not from the date of issue or receipt of the rectifying documents?










2.


If the foregoing question is answered in the negative, do the abovementioned articles of that directive and the principle of neutrality preclude legislation which has the result that, once documents rectifying the initial invoices are received, issued following the tax inspection and payment to the State of the additional tax, for the purpose of obtaining payment of that additional tax, at a time when the period for exercising the right of deduction has already elapsed, it is legitimate for the purchaser to refuse to pay, on the basis that refusal of the passing on of tax is justified where it is impossible to deduct that additional tax?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-698/16 (OJ C 441, 28.11.2016)
Date: 2017-01-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Latvia, bank, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, trade licence








C_2017006EN.01005701.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/57





Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-698/16
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 441 of 28 November 2016
)
(2017/C 006/72)
The Notice in Case T-698/16 Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB should read as follows:

Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB
(Case T-698/16)
(2016/C 441/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB’s decision dated 11 July 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and










—


order the defendant to pay all costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 24 SSM Regulation (1), and related provisions in connection with the review of the ECB’s earlier decision by the Administrative Board of Review.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognize the availability of alternative measures.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, and violation of Article 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation.







(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63).