# C_2015138EN.01002702.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy) lodged on 22 January 2015 — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT srl

(Case C-27/15)

(2015/C 138/39)

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

Applicant: Pippo Pizzo

Applicant:

Defendant: CRGT srl

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Must Articles 47 and 48 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) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, like the Italian legislation described above, which allows divided reliance upon the capacities of other entities, on the terms set out above, in respect of services? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Must Articles 47 and 48 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) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, like the Italian legislation described above, which allows divided reliance upon the capacities of other entities, on the terms set out above, in respect of services?

1

| 2) | Do the principles of EU law, and, in particular, those of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and proportionality, preclude a legal rule of a Member State which permits the exclusion from a public tendering procedure of an undertaking which did not understand, because this was not expressly provided in the tender documents, that it was obliged, on pain of exclusion from that procedure, to fulfil the obligation to pay a sum in order to participate in that procedure, even though the existence of that obligation cannot be clearly deduced from the wording of the law in force in the Member State, but can nevertheless be inferred, by means of a twofold legal operation, which involves, first, interpreting extensively certain provisions of that Member State’s positive law and, then, incorporating — in accordance with the outcome of that broad interpretation — the mandatory provisions in the tendering documents? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Do the principles of EU law, and, in particular, those of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and proportionality, preclude a legal rule of a Member State which permits the exclusion from a public tendering procedure of an undertaking which did not understand, because this was not expressly provided in the tender documents, that it was obliged, on pain of exclusion from that procedure, to fulfil the obligation to pay a sum in order to participate in that procedure, even though the existence of that obligation cannot be clearly deduced from the wording of the law in force in the Member State, but can nevertheless be inferred, by means of a twofold legal operation, which involves, first, interpreting extensively certain provisions of that Member State’s positive law and, then, incorporating — in accordance with the outcome of that broad interpretation — the mandatory provisions in the tendering documents?

---

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

1

---