- 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-124/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 57 – Directive 2014/25/EU – Article 80 – Public procurement – Procedure – Exclusion grounds – Maximum duration of the exclusion period – Obligation for the economic operator to collaborate with the contracting authority in order to demonstrate its reliability)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0124
62017CA0124
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
C 4/2
(Case C-124/17) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 57 - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 80 - Public procurement - Procedure - Exclusion grounds - Maximum duration of the exclusion period - Obligation for the economic operator to collaborate with the contracting authority in order to demonstrate its reliability)
(2019/C 4/02)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Vossloh Laeis GmbH
Defendant: Stadtwerke München GmbH
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 80 of 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, read in conjunction with Article 57(6) of 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, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which requires an economic operator wishing to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of a relevant ground for exclusion to clarify the facts and circumstances relating to the criminal offence or the misconduct committed in a comprehensive manner by actively cooperating not only with the investigating authority, but also with the contracting authority, in the context of the latter’s specific role, in order to provide it with proof of the re-establishment of its reliability, to the extent that that cooperation is limited to the measures strictly necessary for that examination.
2.Article 57(7) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an economic operator has been engaged in conduct falling within the ground for exclusion referred to in Article 57(4)(d) of that directive, which has been penalised by a competent authority, the maximum period of exclusion is calculated from the date of the decision of that authority.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.