- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-687/17 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2017 by Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2017 in Case T-138/15: Aanbestedingskalender BV and Others v European Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0687
62017CN0687
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
12.3.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 94/7
—
(Case C-687/17 P)
(2018/C 094/08)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV (represented by: C. T. Dekker, L. Fiorilli, advocaten)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Slovak Republic
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
—set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by appellant in Case T-138/15 and, consequently:
—annul the decision at issue, in whole or in part; and/or
—in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by appellants in Case T-138/15 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it;
—order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and failed to state a proper and consistent reasoning by considering and finding that the applicant’s single plea in law must be rejected and the action therefore dismissed in its entirety because the Commission was entitled to find that the activities performed by TenderNed were not economic in nature and that the measure at issue in the present case did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
The appellants claim that the economic or non-economic nature of TenderNed’s activities, especially its submission module, cannot be considered as facets of one single activity and that TenderNed’s submission module should be considered as economic in nature and as separable from public powers. The appellants claim that the General Court did not comply with the Court of Justice’s case-law regarding the test of whether an activity is economic or non-economic in nature.
—