# C_2008142EN.01002001.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 April 2008 — Aktor Anonimi Tekhniki Etairia (Αktor A.T.E.) v Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

(Case C-149/08)

(2008/C 142/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Aktor Anonimi Tekhniki Etairia (Αktor A.T.E.)

Claimant:

Defendant: Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

Defendant:

Intervener: Mikhaniki A.E.

Intervener:

Questions referred

| 1. | Accepting that a national provision in accordance with which only all the members of a consortium without legal personality which has participated unsuccessfully in a public procurement procedure can bring a legal action against the act awarding the contract, and not consortium members individually, is not in principle contrary to Community law and specifically to Directive 89/665, and that that still applies where the legal action has initially been brought by all the members of the consortium but ultimately proves, as regards some of them, to be inadmissible, is it in addition necessary, from the viewpoint of application of that directive, to examine, in order to make a declaration of inadmissibility, whether those individual members thereafter retain the right to claim before another national court any damages which may be envisaged by a provision of national law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Accepting that a national provision in accordance with which only all the members of a consortium without legal personality which has participated unsuccessfully in a public procurement procedure can bring a legal action against the act awarding the contract, and not consortium members individually, is not in principle contrary to Community law and specifically to Directive 89/665, and that that still applies where the legal action has initially been brought by all the members of the consortium but ultimately proves, as regards some of them, to be inadmissible, is it in addition necessary, from the viewpoint of application of that directive, to examine, in order to make a declaration of inadmissibility, whether those individual members thereafter retain the right to claim before another national court any damages which may be envisaged by a provision of national law?

| 2. | When it has been held by settled case-law of a national court that an individual member of a consortium may also bring an admissible legal action against an act falling within a public procurement procedure, is it compatible with Directive 89/665/EEC, interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a general principle of Community law, to dismiss a legal action as inadmissible, because of a change to that settled case-law, without the person who has brought that legal action first being given either the opportunity to cure the inadmissibility or, in any event, the opportunity to set out, pursuant to the adversarial principle, his views relating to that issue? |
| --- | --- |

2.

When it has been held by settled case-law of a national court that an individual member of a consortium may also bring an admissible legal action against an act falling within a public procurement procedure, is it compatible with Directive 89/665/EEC, interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a general principle of Community law, to dismiss a legal action as inadmissible, because of a change to that settled case-law, without the person who has brought that legal action first being given either the opportunity to cure the inadmissibility or, in any event, the opportunity to set out, pursuant to the adversarial principle, his views relating to that issue?

---