# C_2019280EN.01003101.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Vert Marine SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-472/19)

(2019/C 280/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vert Marine SAS

Defendant): Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (1) be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, with an objective of promoting accountability in public procurement, from not giving an economic operator that has been convicted by final judgment of an offence of specific gravity, and that, on that ground, is the subject of a measure prohibiting it from participating in a procedure for procurement by a concession contract for a period of five years, the opportunity of providing evidence to the effect that the measures it has taken are sufficient to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of that ground for exclusion? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (1) be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, with an objective of promoting accountability in public procurement, from not giving an economic operator that has been convicted by final judgment of an offence of specific gravity, and that, on that ground, is the subject of a measure prohibiting it from participating in a procedure for procurement by a concession contract for a period of five years, the opportunity of providing evidence to the effect that the measures it has taken are sufficient to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of that ground for exclusion?

| 2. | If Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 allows the Member States to entrust authorities other than the contracting authority concerned with the responsibility of assessing the compliance mechanism for operators, does that power enable that authority to entrust the courts with that mechanism? If so, can mechanisms such as the provisions of French law on release, judicial rehabilitation and the removal of any mention of the conviction from Bulletin No 2 of the criminal record be treated in the same way as compliance mechanisms in accordance with the directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 allows the Member States to entrust authorities other than the contracting authority concerned with the responsibility of assessing the compliance mechanism for operators, does that power enable that authority to entrust the courts with that mechanism? If so, can mechanisms such as the provisions of French law on release, judicial rehabilitation and the removal of any mention of the conviction from Bulletin No 2 of the criminal record be treated in the same way as compliance mechanisms in accordance with the directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1.

---