This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TJ0629
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2019.#Czech Republic v European Commission.#ERDF — ESF — Reduction in financial assistance — Public procurement — Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC — Specific exclusion — Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters.#Case T-629/17.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2019.
Czech Republic v European Commission.
ERDF — ESF — Reduction in financial assistance — Public procurement — Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC — Specific exclusion — Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters.
Case T-629/17.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2019.
Czech Republic v European Commission.
ERDF — ESF — Reduction in financial assistance — Public procurement — Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC — Specific exclusion — Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters.
Case T-629/17.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2019:596
- Date of document:
- 12/09/2019
- Date lodged:
- 18/09/2017
- Author:
- General Court
- Country or organisation from which the request originates:
- Czechia
- Form:
- Judgment
- Additional information:
- POURVOI C-862/19
- Authentic language:
- Czech
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment - unfounded
- Applicant:
- Czechia
- Judge-Rapporteur:
- Marcoulli
- Treaty:
- Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Affected by case:
-
- Related judicial information 62017TA0629
- Confirmed by 62019CJ0862
- Review of judgement requested by 62019CN0862
- Instruments cited in case law:
-
- 31992L0050: N 32 44
- 31992L0050-A01LAPT4: N 33 - 35 38 46 48 49
- 31992L0050-C11: N 35
- 32004L0018-C25: N 18 31 35 49 57 59 62
- 32004L0018-A16LB: N 2 4 5 14 17 19 21 22 24 - 26 30 31 34 38 - 42 48 - 52 54 57 59 - 61
- 32004L0018: N 20
- 32004L0018-A16LA: N 24 59
- 32004L0018-A01P2LD: N 50
- 32004L0018-N2B: N 50 51
- 32004L0018-A16: N 58
- 32004L0018-A16LC: N 59
- 32004L0018-A16LD: N 59
- 32004L0018-A16LF: N 59
- 32006R1083-A32: N 1
- 32006R1083-A99P1LA: N 14 16
- 32006R1083-A09P5: N 23
- 32006R1083-C22: N 23
- 32014L0024: N 20 71
- 32014L0024-A10LB: N 72
- 61998CJ0380-N17: N 27
- 62006CJ0337: N 20 38 44 - 48
- 62006CJ0337-N30: N 34
- 62006CJ0337-N7: N 34
- 62006CJ0337-N8: N 34
- 62006CJ0337-N62: N 35
- 62006CJ0337-N63: N 36
- 62006CJ0337-N64: N 37
- 62006CJ0337-N66: N 37
- 62013CJ0113-N51: N 28
- 62013CJ0568-N34: N 28
- 62015CJ0046-N48: N 55
- 62016CJ0075-N47: N 26
- 62016CJ0408-N54: N 23
- 62016CJ0408-N57: N 23
- 62016CJ0408-N45: N 29
- 62017CJ0250-N20: N 55
