Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:747
Date: 2016-10-06
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 6 October 2016 1. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Scope — Contract with a value below the threshold laid down by the directive — Not included — Application of fundamental rules and the general principles of the FEU Treaty — Condition — Contract having a certain cross-border interest — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1251/2011, Art. 7(b)) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Existence of possible cross-border interest — Presence of elements allowing for a meaningful reply — None — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1251/2011, Art. 7(b)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 19, 20) 2. It is necessary to declare inadmissible a request for a preliminary ruling concerning a procedure for the award of a public works contract whose value is below the threshold laid down by Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Regulation No 1251/2011, since the national court has submitted no evidence providing the Court with information concerning certain cross-border interest. In that regard, a conclusion that there is certain cross-border interest cannot be inferred hypothetically from certain factors which, considered in the abstract, could constitute evidence to that effect, but must be the positive outcome of a specific assessment of the circumstances of the contract at issue. More particularly, the national court may not merely submit to the Court of Justice evidence showing that certain cross-border interest cannot be ruled out but must, on the contrary provide information capable of proving that it exists. (see paras 22, 23, 27, operative part)