Order — ECLI:EU:C:2016:540
Date: 2016-07-07
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Approximation of laws;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary — Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 7 July 2016 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Questions bearing no relation to the subject matter of the case in the main proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Scope — Contract of a lower value than the threshold laid down by the directive — Not included — Application of the fundamental rules and 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)) 3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Existence of certain cross-border interest — Existence of information enabling a useful answer — Lack — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, 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 para. 19) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 27, 28) 3. A request for a preliminary ruling relating to a public procurement procedure for supplies of a value not exceeding the threshold set by Directive No 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1251/2011, must be declared manifestly inadmissible where the national court did not submit any element enabling the Court to have available to it any information regarding the existence of certain cross-border interest. As is clear from Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court must be able to find in a request for a preliminary ruling a summary of the facts on which the questions are based and the connection, in particular, between those facts and the questions. Therefore, the findings necessary to verify the existence of certain cross-border interest, and more generally all the findings to be made by the national courts and on which the applicability of an act of secondary and primary legislation of the European Union depends, must be made before the questions are referred to the Court. On this point, although admittedly, there are cases in which the Court, without any express information provided in that regard by the referring court, can infer from the information in the order for reference the possible existence of certain cross-border interest, this is not so where, for want of any information of that kind in the order for reference, the Court considers that it cannot make such an inference. In those circumstances, the Court is unable to give a helpful answer to the questions raised by the referring court in order to resolve the case before it, which is the objective of the cooperation established by Article 267 TFEU. (see paras 29-32, operative part)