- 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-355/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Bietergemeinschaft: Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH and Caverion Österreich GmbH
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0355
62015CN0355
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
28.9.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 320/17
(Case C-355/15)
(2015/C 320/24)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: Bietergemeinschaft: Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH and Caverion Österreich GmbH
Other parties: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co KG in Vienna
Questions referred
1.In the light of the principles established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 July 2013 in Case C-100/12 (1) Fastweb SpA, is Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (2) , in the version amended by Directive 2007/66/EC amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (3) (‘Directive 89/665’), to be interpreted as meaning that a tenderer whose bid was definitively excluded by the contracting authority and who is therefore not a tenderer concerned within the meaning of Article 2a of Directive 89/665 may be refused access to a review of the award decision (decision on the conclusion of a framework agreement) and of the conclusion of the contract (including the award of damages required under Article 2(7) of the Directive), even where only two tenderers submitted bids and the bid submitted by the successful tenderer, to whom the contract was awarded, should, in the submission of the tenderer not concerned, also have been excluded?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
2.In the light of the principles established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 July 2013 in Case C-100/12 Fastweb SpA, is Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 to be interpreted as meaning that the tenderer not concerned (within the meaning of Article 2a of the Directive) must be granted access to a review only:
(a) where it is apparent from the documents forming part of the review procedure that the successful tenderer’s bid is not valid; or
(b) where the successful tenderer’s bid is not valid on identical grounds?
ECLI:EU:C:2013:448.
OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.