# C_2015213EN.01001602.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 April 2015 — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) and Others

(Case C-171/15)

(2015/C 213/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Connexxion Taxi Services BV

Appellant:

Respondents: Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport), Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1 | (a) | Does EU law, in particular Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, preclude national law from obliging a contracting authority to assess, by application of the principle of proportionality, whether a tenderer which is guilty of grave professional misconduct must indeed be excluded? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1

(a)

Does EU law, in particular Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, preclude national law from obliging a contracting authority to assess, by application of the principle of proportionality, whether a tenderer which is guilty of grave professional misconduct must indeed be excluded?

1

| (b) | Is it significant in this regard that a contracting authority has stated in the tender conditions that a tender to which a ground for exclusion applies must be set aside and is not to be eligible for further substantive assessment? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is it significant in this regard that a contracting authority has stated in the tender conditions that a tender to which a ground for exclusion applies must be set aside and is not to be eligible for further substantive assessment?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative: does EU law preclude a situation in which the national courts fail to carry out an ‘unrestricted’ judicial review of an assessment conducted on the basis of the principle of proportionality, such as the assessment conducted by a contracting authority in the present case, but merely carry out a (‘marginal’) review as to whether the contracting authority could reasonably have come to the decision not to exclude a tenderer notwithstanding the fact that that tenderer was guilty of grave professional misconduct within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative: does EU law preclude a situation in which the national courts fail to carry out an ‘unrestricted’ judicial review of an assessment conducted on the basis of the principle of proportionality, such as the assessment conducted by a contracting authority in the present case, but merely carry out a (‘marginal’) review as to whether the contracting authority could reasonably have come to the decision not to exclude a tenderer notwithstanding the fact that that tenderer was guilty of grave professional misconduct within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC?

---

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

1

---