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-298/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 June 2015 — ‘Borta’ UAB v VĮ Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0298

62015CN0298

June 18, 2015
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

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/20

(Case C-298/15)

(2015/C 311/24)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ‘Borta’ UAB

Respondent: VĮ Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija

Questions referred

Must the provisions of Articles 37, 38, 53 and 54 of Directive 2004/17 be understood and interpreted, whether together or separately (but without limitation to those provisions), as meaning that:

(a)they preclude a national rule under which, in the case where subcontractors are invited to perform a works contract, the main work, as identified by the contracting authority, must be carried out by the supplier?

(b)they preclude a scheme, laid down in the procurement documents, for combining the professional capacities of suppliers, such as that specified by the contracting authority in the contested tender specification, which requires that the portion representing the professional capacity of the relevant economic operator (a joint-activity partner) must correspond to the portion of the specific work which it will actually carry out under the public procurement contract?

Must the provisions of Articles 10, 46 and 47 of Directive 2004/17 be understood and interpreted, whether together or separately (but without limitation to those provisions), as meaning that:

(a)the principles of equal treatment of suppliers and transparency are not infringed in the case where the contracting authority:

provides beforehand, in the procurement documents, a general option of combining the professional capacities of suppliers, but does not set out the scheme for implementing this option;

subsequently, in the course of the public procurement procedure, it defines in greater detail the requirements governing the appraisal of the qualifications of suppliers by laying down certain restrictions on combining the professional capacities of suppliers;

because of this more detailed definition of the content of the qualification requirements, it extends the deadline for tender submissions and announces this extension in the Official Journal?

(b)a restriction on the combining of suppliers’ capacities does not have to be clearly indicated in advance if the specific character of the contracting authority’s activities and the special features of the public procurement contract make such a restriction foreseeable and justifiable?

Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

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