# C_2013038EN.01001302.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium

(Case C-561/12)

2013/C 38/17

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS

Applicants:

Defendant: Rahandusministeerium

Defendant:

Third Party: Maanteeamet

Third Party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (a) | Must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) 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 be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority to conduct negotiations with tenderers on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) 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 be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority to conduct negotiations with tenderers on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract?

1

| (b) | If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders to alter the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications, provided that the subject-matter of the contract is not altered and equal treatment of all tenderers is ensured? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders to alter the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications, provided that the subject-matter of the contract is not altered and equal treatment of all tenderers is ensured?

| (c) | If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as meaning that a rule which excludes alteration of the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders is contrary to that provision? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as meaning that a rule which excludes alteration of the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders is contrary to that provision?

| (d) | If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as prohibiting the contracting authority from accepting as the best tender a tender which at the end of the negotiations does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as prohibiting the contracting authority from accepting as the best tender a tender which at the end of the negotiations does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications?

---

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

1

---