- 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-513/23, Obshtina Pleven: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Pleven (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 August 2023 — Obshtina Pleven v Rakovoditel na Upravlyavashtia organ na Operativna programa ‘Regioni v rastezh’ 2014–2020
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0513
62023CN0513
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
Official Journal of the European Union
Series C
C/2023/313
30.10.2023
(Case C-513/23, Obshtina Pleven)
(C/2023/313)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Obshtina Pleven
Defendant: Rakovoditel na Upravlyavashtia organ na Operativna programa ‘Regioni v rastezh’ 2014–2020
Question referred
Is Article 42(3)(b) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, together with point 2 of Annex VII thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that national legislation and case-law, according to which the contracting authority is always obliged to include with each reference made in the contract notice to a standard to be complied with the words ‘or equivalent’, even in the case where compliance is required with a harmonised standard which was adopted on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC, or on the basis of Directive 89/106/EEC, is admissible?
(1) OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
(2) OJ 2011 L 88, p. 5.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/313/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)