# C_2010246EN.01003202.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 9 July 2010 — SIA Norma-A, SIA Dekom v Ludzas novada dome

(Case C-348/10)

()

2010/C 246/54

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SIA Norma-A, SIA Dekom

Applicants:

Defendant: Ludzas novada dome

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to treat as a public service concession a contract under which the successful tenderer is granted the right to provide public bus services, in cases where part of the consideration consists in the right to operate the public transport services but where, at the same time, the contracting authority compensates the service provider for losses arising as a result of the provision of services, and in addition the public law provisions governing the provision of the service and the contractual provisions limit the risk associated with operation of the service? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to treat as a public service concession a contract under which the successful tenderer is granted the right to provide public bus services, in cases where part of the consideration consists in the right to operate the public transport services but where, at the same time, the contracting authority compensates the service provider for losses arising as a result of the provision of services, and in addition the public law provisions governing the provision of the service and the contractual provisions limit the risk associated with operation of the service?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, has Article 2f(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC, (2) been directly applicable in Latvia since 21 December 2009? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, has Article 2f(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC, (2) been directly applicable in Latvia since 21 December 2009?

2

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 2f(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC be interpreted as being applicable to public contracts entered into before the end of the period prescribed for domestic law to be brought into conformity with Directive 2007/66/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 2f(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC be interpreted as being applicable to public contracts entered into before the end of the period prescribed for domestic law to be brought into conformity with Directive 2007/66/EC?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

1

(2)  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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).

2

---