# C_2017269EN.01000401.xml

| 14.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

(Case C-300/17)

(2017/C 269/06)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hochtief AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law preclude a procedural provision of a Member State which makes the possibility of asserting any civil right of action resulting from an infringement of a public procurement provision conditional on a final declaration by a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) that the provision has been infringed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law preclude a procedural provision of a Member State which makes the possibility of asserting any civil right of action resulting from an infringement of a public procurement provision conditional on a final declaration by a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) that the provision has been infringed?

| 2. | Can a provision of a Member State providing, as a condition for being able to assert a claim for compensation, that a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) must have made a final declaration that a provision has been infringed be replaced by another provision in accordance with EU law? In other words, can the injured party prove the infringement of the provision by other means? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can a provision of a Member State providing, as a condition for being able to assert a claim for compensation, that a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) must have made a final declaration that a provision has been infringed be replaced by another provision in accordance with EU law? In other words, can the injured party prove the infringement of the provision by other means?

| 3. | In an action seeking compensation for damage, is a procedural provision of a Member State which allows judicial proceedings to be brought against an administrative decision only on the basis of the legal arguments submitted in proceedings before the public procurement arbitration committee — and the injured party can rely, as a ground for the alleged infringement, on the unlawfulness, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, of his exclusion on the basis of a conflict of interest only in a manner which, in accordance with the actual rules of the negotiated procedure, result in his exclusion from the contract award procedure for another reason, as there has been a change in his application — contrary to EU law and, in particular, to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, or capable of having an effect which runs counter to that law or those principles? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In an action seeking compensation for damage, is a procedural provision of a Member State which allows judicial proceedings to be brought against an administrative decision only on the basis of the legal arguments submitted in proceedings before the public procurement arbitration committee — and the injured party can rely, as a ground for the alleged infringement, on the unlawfulness, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, of his exclusion on the basis of a conflict of interest only in a manner which, in accordance with the actual rules of the negotiated procedure, result in his exclusion from the contract award procedure for another reason, as there has been a change in his application — contrary to EU law and, in particular, to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, or capable of having an effect which runs counter to that law or those principles?

---