- 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-300/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0300
62017CN0300
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
14.8.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 269/4
(Case C-300/17)
(2017/C 269/06)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Hochtief AG
Defendant: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
Questions referred
1.Does EU law preclude a procedural provision of a Member State which makes the possibility of asserting any civil right of action resulting from an infringement of a public procurement provision conditional on a final declaration by a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) that the provision has been infringed?
2.Can a provision of a Member State providing, as a condition for being able to assert a claim for compensation, that a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) must have made a final declaration that a provision has been infringed be replaced by another provision in accordance with EU law? In other words, can the injured party prove the infringement of the provision by other means?
3.In an action seeking compensation for damage, is a procedural provision of a Member State which allows judicial proceedings to be brought against an administrative decision only on the basis of the legal arguments submitted in proceedings before the public procurement arbitration committee — and the injured party can rely, as a ground for the alleged infringement, on the unlawfulness, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, of his exclusion on the basis of a conflict of interest only in a manner which, in accordance with the actual rules of the negotiated procedure, result in his exclusion from the contract award procedure for another reason, as there has been a change in his application — contrary to EU law and, in particular, to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, or capable of having an effect which runs counter to that law or those principles?