# C_2022418EN.01000301.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Veridos GmbH v Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T

(Case C-669/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/81/EC - Coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts - Articles 38 and 49 - Obligation to verify whether an abnormally low tender exists - Criterion laid down by a piece of national legislation for assessing the abnormally low nature of a tender - Not applicable - Requirement that there be at least three tenders - Criterion based on the requirement that a tender be more than 20 % lower than the mean value of the tenders submitted by the other tenderers - Judicial review)

(2022/C 418/03)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal in cassation: Veridos GmbH

Respondents in the appeal in cassation: Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 38 and 49 of Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC,
  must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority, where there is suspicion that a tender is of an abnormally low nature, is required to verify whether this is actually the case by taking account of all the relevant components of the invitation to tender and the contract documents, without the impossibility of applying the criteria laid down for that purpose by a piece of national legislation or the number of tenders submitted being relevant in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 38 and 49 of Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC,

must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority, where there is suspicion that a tender is of an abnormally low nature, is required to verify whether this is actually the case by taking account of all the relevant components of the invitation to tender and the contract documents, without the impossibility of applying the criteria laid down for that purpose by a piece of national legislation or the number of tenders submitted being relevant in that regard.

| 2. | Article 55(2) of Directive 2009/81, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contracting authority has failed to initiate a procedure to verify whether a tender might be of an abnormally low nature, on the ground that it considered that none of the tenders submitted to it was of such a nature, its assessment may be subject to judicial review in the context of proceedings against the decision to award the contract at issue. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 55(2) of Directive 2009/81, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contracting authority has failed to initiate a procedure to verify whether a tender might be of an abnormally low nature, on the ground that it considered that none of the tenders submitted to it was of such a nature, its assessment may be subject to judicial review in the context of proceedings against the decision to award the contract at issue.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---