EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-480/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 July 2022 — EVN Business Service GmbH, Elektra EOOD, Penon EOOD

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0480

62022CN0480

July 18, 2022
With Google you find a lot.
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

26.9.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/17

(Case C-480/22)

(2022/C 368/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants on a point of law: EVN Business Service GmbH, Elektra EOOD, Penon EOOD

Questions referred

1.Must Article 57(3) of Directive 2014/25/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that the provision of centralised purchasing activities by a central purchasing body located in another Member State exists where the contracting entity — irrespective of the question as to the attribution of the control exercised over that contracting entity — is located in a Member State other than that of the central purchasing body?

2.If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does the conflict-of-law rule of Article 57(3) of Directive 2014/25, according to which the ‘provision of centralised purchasing activities’ by a central purchasing body located in another Member State is to be conducted in accordance with the national provisions of the Member State where the central purchasing body is located, also cover both the legislation applicable to review procedures and the competence of the review body for the purposes of Council Directive 92/13/EEC (2)?

3.If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the negative: Must Directive 92/13, and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 1(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the competence of a national review body to review decisions of contracting entities must cover all contracting entities located in the Member State of the review body, or must the competence be determined on the basis of whether the dominant influence over the contracting entity (for the purposes of Article 3(4)(c) and Article 4(2) of Directive 2014/25) is exercised by a federal, regional or local authority or by a body governed by public law which is to be attributed to the Member State of the review body?

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243).

(2) Council Directive of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14).

* * *

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia