# C_2012013EN.01000204.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Republic of Poland), lodged on 9 September 2011 — Praxis Sp. z o.o., ABC Direct Contact Sp. z o.o. v Poczta Polska S.A.

(Case C-465/11)

2012/C 13/05

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Praxis Sp. z o.o., ABC Direct Contact Sp. z o.o.

Applicants:

Defendant: Poczta Polska S.A.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 45(2)(d) of 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, (1) which states that ‘[a]ny economic operator may be excluded from participation in a contract where that economic operator. has been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authorities can demonstrate’, in conjunction with Articles 53(3) and 54(4) of 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, (2) be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to regard as culpable professional misconduct a situation in which the contracting authority concerned annulled, terminated or renounced a public contract with the economic operator concerned owing to circumstances for which that operator is responsible, where the annulment, termination or renouncement occurred in the three-year period before the procedure was initiated and the value of the non-performed part of the contract amounted to at least 5 % of the contract’s value? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 45(2)(d) of 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, (1) which states that ‘[a]ny economic operator may be excluded from participation in a contract where that economic operator. has been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authorities can demonstrate’, in conjunction with Articles 53(3) and 54(4) of 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, (2) be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to regard as culpable professional misconduct a situation in which the contracting authority concerned annulled, terminated or renounced a public contract with the economic operator concerned owing to circumstances for which that operator is responsible, where the annulment, termination or renouncement occurred in the three-year period before the procedure was initiated and the value of the non-performed part of the contract amounted to at least 5 % of the contract’s value?

1

2

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative — if a Member State is able to introduce grounds, other than those listed in Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, for excluding economic operators from participation in a procedure for the award of a public contract, which it considers to be essential for the protection of the public interest, the legitimate interests of the contracting authorities and the maintenance of fair competition between economic operators, is it possible to consider consistent with that directive and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union a situation involving the exclusion of economic operators with which the contracting authority concerned annulled, terminated or renounced a public contract owing to circumstances for which that economic operator is responsible, where the annulment, termination or renouncement occurred in the three-year period before the procedure was initiated and the value of the non-performed part of the contract amounted to at least 5 % of the contract’s value? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative — if a Member State is able to introduce grounds, other than those listed in Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, for excluding economic operators from participation in a procedure for the award of a public contract, which it considers to be essential for the protection of the public interest, the legitimate interests of the contracting authorities and the maintenance of fair competition between economic operators, is it possible to consider consistent with that directive and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union a situation involving the exclusion of economic operators with which the contracting authority concerned annulled, terminated or renounced a public contract owing to circumstances for which that economic operator is responsible, where the annulment, termination or renouncement occurred in the three-year period before the procedure was initiated and the value of the non-performed part of the contract amounted to at least 5 % of the contract’s value?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

1

(2)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.

2

---