- 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-531/10: Action brought on 16 November 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CN0531
62010CN0531
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
29.1.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 30/22
(Case C-531/10)
()
2011/C 30/37
Language of the case: Slovak
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra and J. Javorský, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Slovak Republic
Form of order sought
—declare that, inasmuch as the Ministry of Transport, Postal Services and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic concluded an agreement for the provision of consultancy services having a cross-border dimension without issuing a call for tenders, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations of non-discrimination and transparency under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1)
—order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Ministry of Transport, Postal Services and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic concluded an agreement for the provision of consultancy services which had a cross-border dimension on grounds of the value of the contract, of the technical information required and of the fact that the previous provider of the services was a company from another Member State. The contract was concluded without a call for tenders. There was thus a clear breach of the principle of transparency, since entities other than those notified by the ministry at its own discretion were not informed of that contract, and did not have the opportunity to submit tenders. By its breach of the principle of transparency, the ministry simultaneously breached the prohibition on discrimination, since it dealt differently with the group of undertakings which it notified of the public contract and the group — including undertakings established outside the Slovak Republic — which were not notified but could have had an interest therein. By the fact that the award of the contract was not made subject to open competition, the ministry itself renounced the advantages arising in that situation from the existence of the internal market, and which would enable the ministry to receive the most advantageous tender for the provision of consultancy services from amongst a large number of undertakings from the European Union.
(1) Directive 2004/18/EC 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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).