- 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-561/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0561
62012CN0561
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
9.2.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 38/13
(Case C-561/12)
2013/C 38/17
Language of the case: Estonian
Referring court
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.