- 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-316/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 21 May 2021 — Monument Vandekerckhove NV v Stad Gent, other parties: Denys NV, Aelterman BVBA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0316
62021CN0316
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
9.8.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 320/28
(Case C-316/21)
(2021/C 320/27)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Monument Vandekerckhove NV
Defendant: Stad Gent
Interveners: Denys NV, Aelterman BVBA
Questions referred
1.Must the second paragraph of Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, taken on its own and in conjunction with the scope of the principles of European law, namely equality, non-discrimination and transparency in public procurement, be interpreted as meaning that, if the contracting authority ascertains that an entity on whose capacity an economic operator relies does not fulfil the selection criteria, it is obliged to request that entity’s replacement or that it has the option to request such replacement if the economic operator wishes to be selected?
2.Are there circumstances in which, on the basis of the principles of equality, non-discrimination and transparency, and also depending on the conduct of the award procedure, the contracting authority is not, or is no longer, obliged, or is not, or is no longer, permitted to insist on replacement?
(1) OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.