# C_2014431EN.01001401.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 17 September 2014 — Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, and Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF) v Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani and Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana

(Case C-425/14)

(2014/C 431/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, and Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF)

Appellants:

Respondents: Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani and Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law, and in particular Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) preclude a provision — such as Article 1(17) of Law No 190/2012 — under which contracting authorities may treat as a legitimate ground for excluding undertakings from a tendering procedure for the award of a public procurement contract the non-acceptance, or the lack of documentary evidence of acceptance, by those undertakings of the commitments set out in legality protocols and, more generally, in agreements between the contracting authorities and participating undertakings which are intended to prevent organised crime from infiltrating the public contract awards sector? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law, and in particular Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) preclude a provision — such as Article 1(17) of Law No 190/2012 — under which contracting authorities may treat as a legitimate ground for excluding undertakings from a tendering procedure for the award of a public procurement contract the non-acceptance, or the lack of documentary evidence of acceptance, by those undertakings of the commitments set out in legality protocols and, more generally, in agreements between the contracting authorities and participating undertakings which are intended to prevent organised crime from infiltrating the public contract awards sector?

1

| 2. | On a proper construction of Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, may legislation of a Member State conferring the power of exclusion described in Question 1 be regarded as a derogation from the principle that the grounds for exclusion are exhaustive which is justified by the overriding need to combat the attempted infiltration of organised crime into procedures for the award of public contracts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On a proper construction of Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, may legislation of a Member State conferring the power of exclusion described in Question 1 be regarded as a derogation from the principle that the grounds for exclusion are exhaustive which is justified by the overriding need to combat the attempted infiltration of organised crime into procedures for the award of public contracts?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 114).

1

---