Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:917
Date: 2024-10-24
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Provisions governing the Institutions;Approximation of laws;Freedom to provide services;Acts of the institutions
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-513/23 – 1 
Case C-513/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
9 August 2023 
Referring court:  
Administrativen sad Pleven (Administrative Court, Pleven, 
Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
28 July 2023 
Applicant:  
Obshtina Pleven (Municipality of Pleven, Bulgaria) 
Defendant:  
Rakovoditel na Upravlyavashtia organ na Operativna programa 
„Regioni v rastezh“ 2014–2020 (Head of the Management 
Authority of the ‘Regions in Growth’ Operational Programme 
2014-2020) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
This case concerns the action brought by a municipality against an administrative 
measure imposing on it a financial correction in the amount of 25% of the eligible 
expenditure in connection with a contract which it had concluded with the 
contractor awarded one of the lots in a public procurement procedure. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation under the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU of Article 42(3)(b) of 
Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, together 
with Annex VII, point 2 thereof, in particular the words ‘or equivalent’ in relation 
to the standard to be complied with 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-513/23 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Is Article 42(3)(b) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, together with 
point 2 of Annex VII thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that national legislation 
and case-law, according to which the contracting authority is always obliged to 
include with each reference made in the contract notice to a standard to be 
complied with the words ‘or equivalent’, even in the case where compliance is 
required with a harmonised standard which was adopted on the basis of 
Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of 
construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC, or on the 
basis of Directive 89/106/EEC, is admissible? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of 
construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC, recitals 1, 2, 
14 and 16; Article 17(1) 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council, Article 160 
Regulation No 1303/2013, Article 2, point 36, and Article 152(1); Regulation 
No 1083/2006, Article 2, point 7 
Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, 
Article 42 and points 1 and 2 of Annex VII 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 27 October 2016, C-613/14, paragraph 40, 
and of 17 December 2020 in Joined Cases C-475/19 P and 688/19 P, 
paragraphs 65 and 66. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zakon za obshtestvenite porachki (Law on the award of public contracts, ‘the: 
ZOP’), Article 2(1), points 1 and 2, and (2), Article 18(1), point 12), Article 48(2), 
Article 59(2), Article 107, point 1, and Article 112(1), point 2, Article 181(4) 
Naredba Nr. RD-02-20-1 ot 5 fevruari 2015 za usloviyata i reda za vlagane na 
stroitelni produkti v stroezhite na Republika Balgaria (Regulation No RD-02-20-1 
of 5 February 2015 on the conditions and the procedure for the installation of 
construction products in construction works in the Republic of Bulgaria), adopted 
by the Ministar na regionalnoto razvitie i blagoustroystvoto (Minister for Regional 
OBSHTINA PLEVEN 
 
3 
Development and Public Works) (Official Gazette No 14 of 20 February 2015, in 
force since 1 March 2015) 
Naredba za posochvane na nerednosti, predstavlyavashti osnovania za izvarshvane 
na finansovi korektsii, i protsentnite pokazateli za opredelyane razmera na 
finansovite korektsii po reda na Zakona za upravlenie na sredstvata ot 
Evropeyskite strukturni i investitsionni fondove (Regulation determining 
irregularities warranting financial corrections and the percentage thereof to be 
applied in accordance with the Law on the management of ESI Funds) (adopted 
by Council of Ministers order No 57 of 28 March 2017, Official Gazette No 27 of 
31 March 2017, in force since 31 March 2017) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The present judicial proceedings concern a challenge to Decision No RD-02-36-
313 of 20 March 2023 of the Head of the Management Authority of the ‘Regions 
in Growth’ Operational Programme 2014-2020 (‘the Management Authority’) 
imposing on the Municipality of Pleven a 25 (twenty five) % financial correction 
to the eligible expenditure of 1 449 180.17 Bulgarian leva (BGN) exclusive of 
VAT, BGN 1 739 016.20 inclusive of VAT, incurred in connection with the 
contract (No BG16RFOP001-1.007-0004-C01-S-09 (IRO-2541)/23.03.2021) 
which it had concluded with the contractor ‘DIKISTROY’. The financial 
correction amounts in total to BGN 434 754.05 BGN inclusive of VAT. 
2 The Municipality of Pleven is a beneficiary under Management Contract No RD-
02-37-44 of 10 July 2020 and Annex 1 thereto (for the grant of financial aid under 
Priority Axis 1, ‘Sustainable and integrated urban development’, of the ‘Regions 
in Growth’ Operational Programme, procedure BG16RFOP001-1.001-039, 
‘Implementation of Integrated Plans for Urban Regeneration and Development 
2014-2020’, putting into effect project proposal BG16RFOP001-1.007-0004, 
‘Creation of a sustainable urban environment in Pleven – Stage 2), which it had 
concluded with the MRRB [Ministerstvo na regionalnoto razvitie i 
blagoustroystvoto (Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works)]. 
3 In connection with that contract, it conducted a public procurement procedure, 
more specifically a public selection procedure within the meaning of 
Article 18(1), point 12, of the ZOP, entitled ‘Performance of construction works 
for the renovation of linear objects in an urban environment in Pleven, consisting 
of three lots’. The procurement documents contain, inter alia, the requirements 
referred to in the decision at issue. 
4 Of the total number of 17 bids submitted, including six for Lot No 1, the 
committee for the examination, assessment and selection of the bids submitted, 
appointed by the mayor of the municipality by order of October 2020, after 
excluding some of the participants, put forward three participants for selection for 
Lot No 1. Following the opening of the price offers, two participants were 
selected, the third having since withdrawn its tender. The ranking of participants 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-513/23 
 
4  
for Lot No 1 was established by Decision No RD-10-159/16.02.2021 of the mayor 
of the municipality on the selection of contractors for tendered lots. On the basis 
of a report by the chairperson of the aforementioned committee stating that the 
name of the invitation to tender had been incorrectly cited in the minutes and in 
the decision, and on the basis of the chairperson’s proposed correction, the 
contractors [to be awarded contracts under] the individual lots were determined 
retrospectively by Decision No RD-10-186/19.02.2021 of the mayor of the 
municipality. The contract for Lot 1, referred to in paragraph 1 above, was 
concluded on the basis of that selection. A technical specification and a work 
programme were attached to that contract.  
5 The management authority was sent for review a control sheet expressing a 
suspicion of irregularities and administrative proceedings were instituted on that 
basis. The municipality was informed about that suspicion of irregularities by 
letter No 99-00-6-69/17.02.2023 and was given the opportunity to present reasons 
and adduce written evidence with a view to contesting the management 
authority’s initial findings in respect of those irregularities. On 2 March 2023, the 
Municipality of Pleven lodged appeal No BG16RFGP001-1.007-0004-C02-M061, 
in which it raised the same objections as are set out in its application [to this 
court]. 
6 Among the documents submitted in the case pending before the referring court 
was a letter from the Bulgarski Institut po standartizatsia (Bulgarian Institute for 
Standardisation, ‘the BIS’) containing the following considerations: 
‘On 25 March 2005, Bulgarian standard BDS 624:1987 – concrete curbs – was 
replaced by the current Bulgarian standard BDS EN 1340:2005 – concrete curbs 
for paving. Requirements and testing procedures. The latter standard was the 
subject of corrigendum BDS EN 1340:2005/AC:2006. 
The Bulgarian standard introducing European standard BDS EN 60332-1-
2:2006 – Tests on electric and optical fibre cables under fire conditions – Part 1-2: 
Test for vertical flame propagation for a single insulated wire or cable – Procedure 
for 1 kW pre-mixed flame – is a uniformly introduced international standard, 
IEC 60332-1-2:2004. It was the subject of corrigendum IEC 60332-l-2: 
2004/AMDl:2015 EDI and of three amendments: BDS EN 60332-1-
2:2004/l1:2015, BDS EN 60332-1- 2:2004/11:2017 and BDS EN 60332-1-
2:2004/A12:2021’. 
On the question of whether equivalent standards exist, the letter from the BIS 
states: ‘There is no such thing as “equivalent standards” in the context of 
standardisation. This follows from the principle of international, European and 
national standardisation to the effect that there can only be one standard for an 
object. Standards which contain different reference numbers or the same number 
but with a different year of creation cannot be equivalent. 
OBSHTINA PLEVEN 
 
5 
BDS EN 1340:2005 is currently in force and repealed BDS 624:1987, while BDS 
EN 60332-1-2:2006 is currently in force and repealed BDS EN 50265-2-1:2002. 
If a European standard is introduced as a national standard, the BIS, as the 
Bulgarian national standardisation body, must repeal the conflicting national 
standard in order to comply with the principle of harmonisation that is a key 
principle of the European free market. 
If a new version of a standard is created, this usually repeals the old version with 
immediate effect. In some cases, the repeal is postponed for a certain time during 
which both versions of the standard are applicable, the so-called period of joint 
application’. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 The defendant management authority contends that, in the course of the conduct 
of the award procedure, three infringements were permitted, only the first of 
which forms the subject of this request for a preliminary ruling, namely: 
infringement of Article 2(2) and Article 48(2) in conjunction with Article 2(1), 
points 1 and 2, of the ZOP – unlawful selection criterion. The technical 
specification for Lot No 1 lays down the following standards: – BDS 624-87; – 
BDS EN 1340:2005; – EN 60332-1-2. The contracting authority did not make it 
possible for candidates to submit a tender offering standards equivalent to these, 
thereby infringing Article 48(2) of the ZOP, according to which any reference to a 
standard, a specification, a technical assessment, a technical approval or a 
technical standard for comparison within the meaning of Article 1, point 2, must 
be accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent’. In the light of the condition 
formulated to that effect, the management authority submits that the contracting 
authority wrongly restricted the possibility of participation by persons who could 
have delivered the contract by recourse to equivalent standards. That infringement 
is significant because of its potential financial repercussions. It is noted that, in 
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No RD-02-20-1 of 5 February 2015 on 
the conditions and the procedure for the installation of construction products in 
construction works in the Republic of Bulgaria, construction products must meet 
the requirements governing their characteristics laid down in the harmonised 
technical specifications of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, the regulations referred 
to in Article 3(3), the delegated regulations referred to in Article 3(4) and the 
national requirements governing intended use. When formulating the terms of the 
contract, however, the contracting authority has an obligation to accompany any 
reference to a standard with the words ‘or equivalent’. Reference must be made in 
this regard to the case-law contained in judgment No 7298 of 16 May 2019 of the 
VAS [Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court)] in 
administrative case No 2451/2019. 
8 The contested decision also referred to an infringement of Article 160 of 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-513/23 
 
6  
Council and to irregularities within the meaning of Article 2, point 36, of 
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 
According to the management authority, the latter have financial repercussions, 
since an irregularity may be present even in the case where there is a possibility of 
prejudice to the budget of the Union, there being no need to prove the existence of 
a specific financial repercussion. The first infringement in particular constitutes an 
irregularity within the meaning of point 11(b) of Annex 1 to Article 2(1) of the 
Regulation determining irregularities warranting financial corrections and the 
percentage thereof to be applied in accordance with the Law on the management 
of ESI Funds, since that irregularity concerns the application of award criteria 
which are not discriminatory on national/regional/local grounds but have the 
effect of restricting access for candidates or participants to the award procedure 
concerned. In accordance with Article 5(1) of the regulation determining 
irregularities, the financial correction is to be determined in accordance with the 
principle of proportionality, since the financial repercussions of infringements 
cannot actually be quantified. The financial correction was set at the highest rate 
of 25%, in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation determining irregularities. 
9 The appeal lodged by the Municipality of Pleven on 2 March 2023 was dismissed 
as unfounded by the management authority. 
10 That decision was challenged by the applicant, the Municipality of Pleven, on the 
ground that it is incompatible with material law. The management authority’s 
findings in respect of the infringements committed by the applicant, in its capacity 
as public contracting authority, in the course of the invitation to tender and in the 
conduct of the public award procedure, as well as in the conclusion of the contract 
at issue, are erroneous, unfounded and incompatible with the provisions of the 
ZOP and the ZUT [Zakon za ustroystvo na teritoriyata (Law on Spatial 
Planning)]. The application states, with regard to the first infringement, that the 
technical specifications for Lot No 1 refer to standards BDS 624-87, BDS EN 
1340:2005 and EN 60332-1-2, but do not make it possible for participants to 
submit a tender [based on equivalent standards]. The management authority 
submits that the public contracting authority wrongly restricted the eligibility to 
participate of persons able to submit a tender for performance of the contract 
[based on equivalent standards]. This, however, is not the case, for the following 
reasons. 
11 Standard BDS 624-87 governs the material tests, properties, requirements and 
testing procedures for cement-bonded, unreinforced precast concrete blocks for 
kerbs, gutters and additional elements used in paved areas for transport and roof 
coverings, in accordance with the Bulgarski darzhaven standart (Bulgarian State 
standards). At the same time, the aforementioned standard BDS EN 1340:2005 
constitutes a ‘harmonised standard’ within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 
No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 
laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products. 
Article 2(2) of Regulation No RD-02-20-1 of 5 February 2015 states that, 
‘construction products provided for in the designing of construction works and 
OBSHTINA PLEVEN 
 
7 
used in the execution of those works must meet the basic requirements for 
construction works set out in Annex 1 to Regulation (EU) No 305/2011’. 
Accordingly, the failure to include the words ‘or equivalent’ did not have the 
effect of deterring potential candidates from participating in the award procedure, 
as the management authority submits, since, in accordance with the regulation and 
the technical specification, participants must use kerbs that meet the requirements 
of the Bulgarski darzhaven standart (Bulgarian State standards) or the standard 
harmonised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. In the present case, 
the equivalent to the BDS is the harmonised BDS EN standard, there being no 
other equivalent standard inasmuch as any other standard would be contrary to 
Regulation No RD-20-02-1 and Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. Although the 
contracting authority formally failed to comply with Article 48(2) of the ZOP, that 
formal infringement does not have any financial repercussions, the ESI (European 
and Structural Investment) Funds have not been prejudiced and the third 
constituent element of an irregularity is not present.  
12 The application also states that standard EN 60332-1-2 lays down the flame 
propagation tests for cables. This is a harmonised standard for the resistance 
testing of vertical flame propagation on a core, an insulated wire or cable or an 
optical fibre cable under certain conditions. EN 60332-1-2 is a cable-testing 
standard which is generally applicable in the territory of the EU and is referred to 
in the technical specification in the context of passive fire protection measures. In 
this case, the aforementioned standard EN 60332-1-2 is a harmonised standard 
within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, no other standard being 
equivalent inasmuch as any other standard would infringe Regulation No RD-02-
20-1 and Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. Although the public contracting authority 
did not formally comply with Article 48(2) of the ZOP, this did not have any 
financial repercussions and the ESI Funds were not prejudiced, which is to say 
that the third constituent element of an irregularity is not present. 
13 For the foregoing reasons, the applicant submits that there has been no 
infringement of Article 2(2) and Article 48(2) in conjunction with Article 2(1), 
points 1 and 2, of the ZOP such as to constitute an irregularity within the meaning 
of point 11 of Annex 1 to Article 2(1) of the regulation determining irregularities, 
and therefore claims that the decision should be annulled in its entirety, including 
the finding of an infringement in point 1 of the contested decision. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
14 The facts as established above raise the following questions, which are relevant to 
the assessment of the lawfulness of the contested decision: is there an irregularity 
within the meaning of Article 2, point 36, of Regulation No 1303/2013 (or 
Article 2, point 7, of Regulation No 1083/2006 in the light of Article 152(1) of 
Regulation No 1303/2013), according to which ‘irregularity’ means any breach of 
Union law, which is to say: 1. is there any evidence of an infringement of a 
provision of Union law resulting from an act or omission by an economic 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-513/23 
 
8  
operator; 2. is the general budget of the European Union the subject of any actual 
or potential prejudice in the form of an ineligible/unjustified item of expenditure; 
and 3. is there a causal link between the infringement and the prejudice? 
15 In particular, it is for the referring court to establish, in relation to the infringement 
described for the purposes of the present request for a preliminary ruling, as 
referred to in point 1.1 of the contested decision, whether that infringement is 
a) an infringement of point 11(b) of Annex 1 to Article 2(1) of the regulation 
determining irregularities, in the version applicable at the time of the contested 
decision making a financial correction – point 11: ‘Use of’ grounds of exclusion, 
selection criteria or conditions for performance of the contract or technical 
specifications which are not discriminatory within the meaning of point 10 of that 
annex but restrict access for candidates or participants’; letter b – cases in which 
discriminatory criteria/conditions/specifications were used but a minimum degree 
of competition is present, inasmuch as two or more tenders were submitted which 
meet the selection criteria; 
b) an infringement of Article 2(2) and Article 48(2) in conjunction with 
Article 2(1), points 1 and 2, of the ZOP; and 
c) an infringement of Article 160 if Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council. 
16 In order to clarify and correctly answer some of those questions, it is necessary to 
interpret provisions of Community law, in particular a directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council which has been transposed into Bulgarian law but 
the purpose and content of which are unclear as regards the alleged absence of any 
infringement of Article 2(2) and Article 48(2) in conjunction with Article 2(1), 
points 1 and 2, of the ZOP. 
17 In particular, as regards the failure also to mention in the documentation the 
possibility of submitting a tender [based on standards], in respect of kerbs and 
cables, equivalent to the standards referred to in that documentation, the court 
took the following into account: Article 48(2) of the ZOP, which is alleged to 
have been infringed, provides that any reference to a provision, a specification, a 
technical assessment or a technical approval within the meaning of paragraph 1, 
point 2 thereof, must be accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent’. In the present 
case, it is common ground that the procurement documents contained no reference 
to that possibility in respect of standards.  
18 Article 48(2) of the ZOP transposes Directive 2014/24/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and 
repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, in particular Article 42 thereof, into national law. 
In accordance with the first sentence of Article 42(1), technical specifications as 
defined in point 1 of Annex VII are to be set out in the procurement documents. 
The technical specification must lay down the characteristics of construction 
works, services or supplies. In accordance with Article 42(2), technical 
OBSHTINA PLEVEN 
 
9 
specification must afford equal access of economic operators to the procurement 
procedure and must not have the effect of creating unjustified obstacles to the 
opening up of public procurement to competition. Article 42(3(b) provides that, 
without prejudice to mandatory national technical rules, to the extent that they are 
compatible with Union law, the technical specifications must be formulated in one 
of the following ways: … b) by reference to technical specifications and, in order 
of reference, to national standards transposing European standards, European 
Technical Assessments, common technical specifications, international standards, 
other technical reference systems established by the European standardisation 
bodies or – when any of those do not exist – national standards, national technical 
approvals or national technical specifications relating to the design, calculation 
and execution of the works and use of the supplies; each reference must be 
accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent’. 
19 The aforementioned point 2 of Annex VII states that ‘“standard” means a 
technical specification, adopted by a recognised standardisation body, for repeated 
or continuous application, with which compliance is not compulsory, and which is 
one of the following: (a) “international standard” means a standard adopted by an 
international standardisation organisation and made available to the general 
public, (b) “European standard” means a standard adopted by a European 
standardisation organisation and made available to the general public, (c) 
“national standard” means a standard adopted by a national standardisation 
organisation and made available to the general public’. 
20 As is clear from those provisions, Article 42 of Directive [2014/24/EU] concerns a 
‘standard’ in the sense of a technical specification, adopted by a recognised 
standardisation body for repeated or continuous application, with which 
compliance is not compulsory. 
21 On the other hand, there is Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised 
conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Directive 
89/106/EEC. According to recitals 1 and 2 of that regulation, the rules of Member 
States require that construction works be designed and executed so as not to 
endanger the safety of persons, domestic animals or property nor damage the 
environment. Those rules have a direct influence on the requirements of 
construction products. Those requirements are consequently transposed to national 
product standards, national technical approvals and other national technical 
specifications and provisions related to construction products. Because of their 
disparity, those requirements hinder trade within the Union. Recital 14 states that, 
where an intended use requires threshold levels in relation to any essential 
characteristic to be fulfilled by construction products in Member States, those 
levels should be established in the harmonised technical specifications. According 
to recital 16, threshold levels determined by the Commission pursuant to this 
Regulation should be generally recognised values for the essential characteristics 
of the construction product in question with regard to the provisions in Member 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-513/23 
 
10  
States and should ensure a high level of protection within the meaning of 
Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 
22 In the light of those considerations, harmonised standards are to be established, in 
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 17(1) of that regulation, by the 
European standardisation bodies listed in Annex I to Directive 98/34/EC on the 
basis of requests (‘mandates’) issued by the Commission in accordance with 
Article 6 of that directive after having consulted the Standing Committee on 
Construction referred to in Article 64 of this Regulation. 
23 The legal nature of those harmonised standards has formed the subject of the case-
law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The referring court refers to the 
judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2016, C-613/14, 
paragraph 40: ‘It follows from the above that a harmonised standard such as that 
at issue in the main proceedings, adopted on the basis of Directive 89/106 and the 
references to which have been published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union, forms part of EU law, since it is by reference to the provisions of such a 
standard that it is established whether or not the presumption laid down in 
Article 4(2) of Directive 89/106 applies to a given product’. That presumption 
states that Member States must presume that the products are fit for their intended 
use if they enable works in which they are employed, provided the latter are 
properly designed and built, to satisfy the essential requirements referred to in 
Article 3, where those products bear the EC mark indicating their conformity with 
all of the provisions of that directive, including the conformity assessment 
procedures set out in Chapter V and the procedure laid down in Chapter III. It also 
refers to the judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 17 December 
2020 in Joined Cases C-475/19 P and C-688/19 P, paragraphs 65 and 66. 
24 In the present case, since the aforementioned standards mentioned in relation to 
concrete kerbs and cables constitute harmonised standards within the meaning of 
the regulation, they may be regarded as binding. This raises the question as to 
whether they are caught by Article 42 of the public procurement directive, and the 
answer to that question will determine whether the contracting authority is obliged 
or entitled to require the performance of works [based on a standard] equivalent to 
the standard in question. It is important to take into consideration that, according 
to letter No 3527/7.06.2023 from the BIS, no other standards exist. This in turn 
will answer the question as to whether those standards are binding in relation to 
the construction products, namely kerbs and electricity cables, which the 
contractor must install in the works. 
25 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, the Court of Justice 
of the European Union has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret Community law. The 
adjudicating chamber of the referring court, after examining the case-law of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union, finds that the Court of Justice has not 
ruled on this or a comparable question in any proceedings for interpretation or 
annulment. The present request for a preliminary ruling is made at the instance of 
the court seised. In the light of all the foregoing, the proceedings in the present 
OBSHTINA PLEVEN 
 
11 
case must be stayed and a request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court 
of Justice.