# C_2006212EN.01001001.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2006 — Lämmerzahl GmbH v Freie Hansestadt Bremen

(Case C-241/06)

(2006/C 212/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lämmerzahl GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

Defendant:

Question(s) referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 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, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1), in particular Article 1(1) and (3), for a tenderer to be generally barred from gaining access to a review of a contracting authority's decision to award public contracts because the tenderer wrongfully failed to raise an irregularity in the award procedure within the time-limit laid down for that purpose in national law, where the irregularity relates






  (a) | to the form of invitation to tender selected
  or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 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, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1), in particular Article 1(1) and (3), for a tenderer to be generally barred from gaining access to a review of a contracting authority's decision to award public contracts because the tenderer wrongfully failed to raise an irregularity in the award procedure within the time-limit laid down for that purpose in national law, where the irregularity relates

1

(a)

to the form of invitation to tender selected

or

| (b) | to the correctness of the determination of the contract price (the estimate is obviously wrong or the method of determination is not sufficiently transparent)
  and a review of other irregularities in the award procedure that — considered in isolation — would not be time-barred would be permissible on the basis of the contract price correctly determined or to be determined? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to the correctness of the determination of the contract price (the estimate is obviously wrong or the method of determination is not sufficiently transparent)

and a review of other irregularities in the award procedure that — considered in isolation — would not be time-barred would be permissible on the basis of the contract price correctly determined or to be determined?

| 2. | Should the details in a tender notice relevant to determination of the contract price be subject to any special requirements so as to enable the conclusion to be drawn from irregularities relating to the estimated contract price that the protection of primary law is generally precluded even if the correctly estimated contract price exceeds the relevant threshold amount? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the details in a tender notice relevant to determination of the contract price be subject to any special requirements so as to enable the conclusion to be drawn from irregularities relating to the estimated contract price that the protection of primary law is generally precluded even if the correctly estimated contract price exceeds the relevant threshold amount?

---

(1)  OJ L 209, p. 1.

1

---