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
C series
—
(C/2025/4136)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Applicant: I-Sete – Inovação, Soluções Económicas e Tecnologias Ecológicas, Lda.
Defendant: EDIA – Empresa de Desenvolvimento e Infra-estruturas do Alqueva, S. A.
Does the provisional lifting of the automatic suspensive effect, without hearing the opposing party, enshrined in Article 25-A(2) and (3) of Law No 30/2021 of 21 May, as amended by Law No 43/202[4] of 2 December, comply with Article 2d of Directive … 2007/66/EC of the [European] Parliament and of the Council … of 11 December 2007, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) when the latter is interpreted as meaning that the lifting of such an effect always depends on hearing the opposing party and a prior merit-based assessment of all aspects for the purposes of the decision to be taken?
Must Article 2d of that directive be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that makes the economic interest in a possible loss of European funds, on account of a delay in the implementation of a funded project, an overriding reason relating to the general interest justifying the lifting of automatic suspensive effect? Is a mere economic loss a disproportionate consequence, taking into account the interests intended to be safeguarded by the operation of the automatic suspensive effect, compatible with the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 2d(3)?
—
Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 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 (OJ L 335, 20.12.2007, p. 31).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4136/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—