Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/4270

11.8.2025

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 15 May 2025 – ‘Skinest Baltija’ UAB v ‘Lietuvos geležinkeliai’ AB

(Case C-334/25, Skinest Baltija)

(C/2025/4270)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance, respondent and appellant on a point of law:

‘Skinest Baltija’ UAB

Defendant at first instance, appellant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law:

‘Lietuvos geležinkeliai’ AB

Intervening party:

‘LTG Cargo’ AB

Questions referred

Must the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality referred to in Article 36 of [Directive 2014/25/EU (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) 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], and Article 80 of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 56 and 57 of [Directive 2014/24/EU (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC], be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of national legislation under which a request to participate or a tender submitted by a supplier is rejected where (i) the Government of the Republic of Lithuania has adopted a decision confirming that the supplier or persons associated with the supplier, or the transaction intended to be concluded (or which has been concluded) with that supplier or those persons, would not comply with national security interests, and/or (ii) the contracting authority has been informed by the competent authorities that the interests of the supplier or of persons associated with the supplier may pose a threat to national security, are to be classified as grounds for the exclusion of suppliers for the purpose of applying Article 57 of Directive 2014/24 or as independent grounds, linked to national security, for exclusion (prohibition) from participating in the public procurement procedure? In addition, are the requirements laid down in Article 57 of Directive 2014/24, including Article 57(7) thereof, such as the assessment of the proportionality of excluding suppliers, the request for remedial (‘self-cleaning’) measures or the limitation of the period of exclusion, applicable directly or by analogy to such national provisions?

Irrespective of the answer to the first question, must the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality referred to in Article 36 of Directive 2014/25, and Article 80 of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 56 and 57 of Directive 2014/24, be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that laid down in point 4 of Article 58(45) of the [Lietuvos Respublikos pirkim
73, atliekam
73 vandentvarkos, energetikos, transporto ar pa
61to paslaug
73 srities perkan
0dij subjekt
73,
2fstatymas (Law of the Republic of Lithuania on procurement by contracting entities in the fields of water management, energy, transport or postal services; the Law on procurement)], under which a suppliers request to participate or tender is to be rejected solely on the basis that a public authority (the Government) has adopted a decision in respect of that supplier in another procurement, without setting a period during which that decision remains current and without defining the obligation of the contracting entity to assess the impact, on the specific procurement, of the circumstances set out in that decision (inter alia, whether those circumstances are current or whether the facts have changed)?

Irrespective of the answer to the first question, must the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality referred to in Article 36 of Directive 2014/25, and Article 80 of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 56 and 57 of Directive 2014/24, be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that laid down in point 5 of Article 58(45) of the Law on procurement, which automatically excludes a supplier from a procurement procedure, without the contracting entity deciding independently whether the interests of the supplier or of persons associated with the supplier may pose a threat to national security in the context of the specific procurement, and without assessing the proportionality of the measure adopted (rejection of the request to participate or the tender) in the specific case?

Do the provisions of Directive 2014/25 and the principle of equal treatment, together with the obligation of transparency flowing therefrom, preclude the application of a ground for rejecting the request to participate or the tender submitted by a supplier (a ground for exclusion from participation in the public procurement procedure) that is laid down in national law, such as that laid down in point 4 or point 5 of Article 58(45) of the Law on procurement, if that ground has not first been included in the specific procurement documents?

—

Directive 2014/25/EU 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).

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4270/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—