do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-259/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament (Public works contracts — Tender procedure — Construction of an energy unit — Extension and refurbishment of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Financial and economic capacity — Technical and professional capacity — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, building, improvement of housing, tendering, works contract








C_2019187EN.01005802.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/58






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament
(Case T-259/15) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tender procedure - Construction of an energy unit - Extension and refurbishment of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Financial and economic capacity - Technical and professional capacity - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
(2019/C 187/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium), Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers and J.-L. Teheux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by M. Rantala and M. Mraz, and subsequently by J.-M. Stenier, B. Schäfer and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 19 March 2015 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicants in the context of the call for tenders INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO 4, relating to public works contracts in respect of Lot No 73 (energy unit) for the project to extend and refurbish the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg and awarding that lot to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)



Dismisses the action;











2)



Orders SA Close and Cegelec, on the one hand, and the European Parliament, on the other, each to bear their own costs, including the costs relating to the application for interim measures.







(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
Case T-240/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — A9.com v EUIPO (Device of a bell icon)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer system, electronic device, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, software, trade-mark law








C_2019213EN.01005601.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/56






Action brought on 9 April 2019 — A9.com v EUIPO (Device of a bell icon)
(Case T-240/19)
(2019/C 213/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: A9.com, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of device of a bell icon — Application for registration No 17 868 712)

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 1309/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that:






—


The Court annuls the contested decision.










—


The respondent must pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal including the necessary expenses of Applicant in both proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-226/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Radici Chimica Deutschland v Commission
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy supply, reimbursement of aid








C_2019206EN.01007901.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/79






Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Radici Chimica Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-226/19)
(2019/C 206/71)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Radici Chimica Deutschland GmbH (Elsteraue, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;










—


in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based on the following grounds.






1.


Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.










2.


Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
In the second plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.
Case T-182/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of IT services to the Parliament and other EU institutions and bodies — Exclusion from tendering procedures — Potential conflict of interests — Failure to provide information required by the contracting authority — Article 107(1)(b) of the Financial Regulation — Transparency — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Article 102(1) of the Financial Regulation)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU institution, EU office or agency, award of contract, equal treatment, information technology industry, principle of proportionality, provision of services, services contract, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2019187EN.01005801.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/58






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament
(Case T-182/15) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of IT services to the Parliament and other EU institutions and bodies - Exclusion from tendering procedures - Potential conflict of interests - Failure to provide information required by the contracting authority - Article 107(1)(b) of the Financial Regulation - Transparency - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Article 102(1) of the Financial Regulation)
(2019/C 187/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: B. Simon and L. Tapper Brandberg, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: CGI Luxembourg SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Parliament’s decisions, taken in the context of tendering procedure PE/ITEC-ITS14, concerning the provision of IT services to the European Parliament and other EU institutions and bodies, to exclude the tenders submitted for Lots 2 and 3 by the IBI IUS and STEEL consortia, of which the applicant was a member.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



dismisses the action;











2.



orders Sopra Steria Group SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;











3.



orders CGI Luxembourg SA and Intrasoft International SA to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case T-371/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission (Competition — Market for baseband chipsets used in consumer electronic devices — Administrative procedure — Article 18(3) and Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Decision requesting information — Obligation to state reasons — Necessity of the information requested — Proportionality — Burden of proof — Privilege against self-incrimination — Principle of good administration)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, electronic component, electronic device, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, right to justice, sanction (EU)








C_2019187EN.01007201.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/72






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
(Case T-371/17) (1)

(Competition - Market for baseband chipsets used in consumer electronic devices - Administrative procedure - Article 18(3) and Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Decision requesting information - Obligation to state reasons - Necessity of the information requested - Proportionality - Burden of proof - Privilege against self-incrimination - Principle of good administration)
(2019/C 187/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Qualcomm, Inc (San Diego, California, United States), Qualcomm Europe, Inc., (Sacramento, California, United States) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato and M. Davilla, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, M. Farley and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 2258 final of 31 March 2017 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.39711 — Qualcomm (predation))

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Qualcomm, Inc. and Qualcomm Europe, Inc. to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.







(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Scotland, United Kingdom, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, island, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2019132EN.01004501.xml










9.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/45






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 132/09)






Member State


United Kingdom




Routes concerned


Glasgow to Campbeltown
Glasgow to Tiree
Glasgow to Barra




Period of validity of the contract


25 October 2019 to 24 October 2023




Deadline for submission of applications and tenders


12.00 on Monday 24 June 2019




Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained







Transport Scotland




Area 2D (N)




Victoria Quay




Edinburgh




EH6 6QQ




UNITED KINGDOM




Tel +44 1312440854




Email: Michael.Bratcher@transport.gov.scot




Contact: Michael Bratcher, Policy Officer, Aviation Team
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Modification of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Scotland, United Kingdom, air transport, inland transport, island, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2019132EN.01004401.xml










9.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/44






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Modification of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 132/08)






Member State


United Kingdom




Routes concerned


Glasgow to Campbeltown
Glasgow to Tiree
Glasgow to Barra




Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations


21 December 1996




Date of entry into force of modifications


25 October 2019




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained


For further information please contact:





Transport Scotland




Area 2D (N)




Victoria Quay




Edinburgh




EH6 6QQ




UNITED KINGDOM




Tel. +44 1312440854




Email: Michael.Bratcher@transport.gov.scot




Contact: Michael Bratcher, Policy Officer, Aviation Team
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019132EN.01000301.xml










9.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 April 2019
(2019/C 132/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1246 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,36 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4651 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86183 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4325 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1245 




ISK


Iceland króna


133,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6305 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,634 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,54 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2887 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7512 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3781 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5823 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5042 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8247 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6694 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5243 




KRW


South Korean won


1 288,11 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8562 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5561 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4318 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 927,71 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6123 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,633 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,2680 




THB


Thai baht


35,942 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3558 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4390 




INR


Indian rupee


78,3215 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-228/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann v Commission
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy supply, reimbursement of aid








C_2019206EN.01008201.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/82






Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann v Commission
(Case T-228/19)
(2019/C 206/73)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;










—


in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based on the following grounds.






1.


Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.










2.


Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
In the second plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.
Case C-289/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 9 April 2019 — Dexia Nederland BV v Z
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contractual liability, damages, indemnification, unfair terms of contract








C_2019280EN.01001802.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 9 April 2019 — Dexia Nederland BV v Z
(Case C-289/19)
(2019/C 280/25)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Dexia Nederland BV
Respondent: Z

Questions referred







1.


Can the user of an unfair term relating to the payment of compensation in the event of a consumer’s non-compliance with his obligations, which has been declared void, claim the legal compensation provided for by way of supplementary law?










2.


For the purpose of answering that question, does it matter whether the compensation that can be claimed by the application of the statutory compensation scheme is equal to or lower or higher than the compensation under the term which has been declared void?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9278 — LVMH/Belmond) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, hotel industry, luxury products industry, mass media, merger control, travel agency








C_2019140EN.01000101.xml










16.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 140/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9278 — LVMH/Belmond)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 140/01)
On 9 April 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9278. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-242/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, electric vehicle, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2019206EN.01008702.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/87






Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission
(Case T-242/19)
(2019/C 206/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 (1), in as far as it relates to the applicant; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the aluminium raw material purchases of the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant state interference and would have not substantially reflected market values pursuant to the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the chapeau of Article 2(10) as well as Articles 2(10)(d)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 since it would have failed to carry out a fair comparison by not adjusting normal value for the differences in level of trade between export prices and normal value and by not providing the applicant with the information necessary for the applicant to quantify its adjustment claim.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by failing to compare, for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling calculations, the prices of imports with the price of the like product produced by the European Union industry at the same level of trade and at the point where the goods enter into competition with each other.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 16, 18.1.2019, p. 108).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).