Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 – Novart Engineering
(Case C‑170/20)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Scope – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 4 – Threshold amount for public contracts – Contracts which may have some cross-border interest – No information enabling a useful answer – Request manifestly inadmissible)
1.      Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Directive 2014/24 – Scope – Contract with a value below the threshold laid down by the directive – Precluded – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Not applicable
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24, Art. 2(1), Art. 4 and Annex I; Council Directive 89/665, Art. 1(1))
(see paras 25-30)
2.      Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Directive 2014/24 – Scope – Contract with a value below the threshold laid down by the directive – Precluded – 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 2014/24, Art. 4)
(see paras 31-35)
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 – None – Manifest inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24, Art. 4; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)
(see paras 36-39)
Operative part
The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Court of Appeal, Constanța, Romania)), by decision of 19 March 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.