62007CC0536_EN
Opinion of the Advocate-General
Opinion of the Advocate-General
Table of contents
I – Legal framework
II – Facts
III – Pre-litigation procedure
IV – Procedure before the Court and forms of order sought by the parties
V – Main arguments of the parties
A – Admissibility of the action
B – The merits of the action
VI – Legal appraisal
A – Admissibility of the action
B – The merits of the action
1. Introductory observations
2. Whether the City of Cologne is the awarding body in relation to GKM
a) The City of Cologne must be characterised as the awarding body in relation to GKM
b) Alternatively, in the case that Kölnmesse must be characterised as the ‘true’ awarding body in relation to GKM
3. The mixed works and services character of the main contract of 6 August 2004
4. Determination of the main purpose of the mixed main contract of 6 August 2004
5. Conclusion
VII – Costs
VIII – Conclusion
I – Introduction
1. The present case is a Treaty infringement action under Article 226 EC whereby the Commission seeks a declaration from the Court of Justice of the European Communities that by reason of the fact that the City of Cologne concluded with the Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 15-18 GbR (‘GKM’) a contract for the construction and use for 30 years thereafter of four exhibition halls including ancillary buildings and attendant infrastructure without carrying out a procedure for the award of contracts involving a Europe-wide invitation to tender in compliance with the provisions specified, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 in conjunction with Article 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts. (2)
2. In examining this action, it must be clarified, first, whether the effects of the alleged infringement of procurement law had been completely exhausted when the period laid down by the Commission in the reasoned opinion expired, in which case the action must be dismissed as inadmissible. Thereafter, it must be examined whether there is a public works contract for the purposes of procurement law where the City of Cologne is the awarding body.
II – Legal framework
3. The 2nd and 10th recitals in the preamble to Directive 93/37 state:
‘… the simultaneous attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of public works contracts awarded in Member States on behalf of the State, or regional or local authorities or other bodies governed by public law entails not only the abolition of restrictions but also the coordination of national procedures for the award of public works contracts;
…
… to ensure development of effective competition in the field of public contracts, it is necessary that contract notices drawn up by the contracting authorities of Member States be advertised throughout the Community; … the information contained in these notices must enable contractors established in the Community to determine whether the proposed contracts are of interest to them; … for this purpose, it is appropriate to give them adequate information on the works undertaken and the conditions attached thereto; …’
4. Article 1 of Directive 93/37 provides:
‘For the purpose of this Directive:
(a) “public works contracts” are contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a contractor and a contracting authority as defined in (b), which have as their object either the execution, or both the execution and design, of works related to one of the activities referred to in Annex II or a work defined in (c) below, or the execution, by whatever means, of a work corresponding to the requirements specified by the contracting authority;
(b) “contracting authorities” shall be the State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law, associations formed by one or several of such authorities or bodies governed by public law;
A “body governed by public law” means any body:
– established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, and
– having legal personality, and
– financed, for the most part, by the State, or regional or local authorities, or other bodies governed by public law, or subject to management supervision by those bodies, or having an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by the State, regional or local authorities or by other bodies governed by public law;
...
(c) a “work” means the outcome of building or civil engineering, works taken as a whole that is sufficient of itself to fulfil an economic and technical function;
…
(e) “open procedures” are those national procedures whereby all interested contractors may submit tenders;
(f) “restricted procedures” are those national procedures whereby only those contractors invited by the contracting authority may submit tenders;
(g) “negotiated procedures” are those national procedures whereby contracting authorities consult contractors of their choice and negotiate the terms of the contract with one or more of them;
…’
5. In accordance with Article 6, in principle, Directive 93/37 does not apply to works contracts whose value does not exceed EUR 5 000 000.
6. Under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/37, in awarding public works contracts contracting authorities must apply open, restricted or negotiated procedures defined in Article 1, adapted to that directive. Thereupon, Article 7(2) lists the cases in which public works contracts may be awarded by negotiated procedure, with prior publication of a contract notice, whereas Article 7(3) establishes the cases in which public works contracts may be awarded by negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice. In all other cases, according to Article 7(4) of that directive, contracting authorities must award their public works contracts by the open procedure or by the restricted procedure.
7. Article 11 of Directive 93/37 provides:
‘1. Contracting authorities shall make known, by means of an indicative notice, the essential characteristics of the works contracts which they intend to award and the estimated value of which is not less than the threshold laid down in Article 6(1).
2. Contracting authorities who wish to award a public works contract by open, restricted or negotiated procedure referred to in Article 7(2) shall make known their intention by means of a notice.
…’
8. Article 1 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (3) provides as follows:
‘For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) public service contracts shall mean contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a service provider and a contracting authority, to the exclusion of:
…
(iii)	contracts for the acquisition or rental, by whatever financial means, of land, existing buildings, or other immovable property or concerning rights thereon; nevertheless, financial service contracts concluded at the same time as, before or after the contract of acquisition or rental, in whatever form, shall be subject to this Directive;
…’
III – Facts
9. The present action for failure to fulfil obligations concerns the construction – at the behest of the City of Cologne – of four new exhibition halls including ancillary buildings and attendant infrastructure executed by the private undertaking GKM. From the outset, it was intended that those exhibition halls should be operated by Kölnmesse GmbH (‘Kölnmesse’), a company governed by private law, in which the City of Cologne holds 79% of the shares and the Land
of North Rhine-Westphalia 20% and whose purpose, according to its articles of association, is to organise and hold trade fairs and exhibitions for the purposes of promoting industry, commerce and crafts.
10. The first plans for the construction of four new exhibition halls at Cologne’s trade fair site were developed in the 1990s by Kölnmesse. Having concluded that the Rheinhallen
(exhibition halls 1, 2, 3 and 5) leased from the City of Cologne for trade fair purposes were no longer able to satisfy the demands made of them, Kölnmesse drew up a master plan in 2000-01, providing, inter alia, for the construction of four new exhibition halls by 2012. That master plan was taken up by the City of Cologne in 2003 because it wanted to offer the Rheinhallen
used by Kölnmesse to the television broadcaster RTL from the beginning of 2008 in order to avert that undertaking’s threatened departure from Cologne. Against that background, Kölnmesse and the City of Cologne agreed to bring forward the construction of the four new exhibition halls including ancillary buildings and attendant infrastructure envisaged in the master plan.
11. For the purposes of funding those works, the City of Cologne and Kölnmesse decided, ultimately, to adopt a funding model in which not the City of Cologne or Kölnmesse itself, but a private undertaking, GKM, would – in its capacity as developer – construct the exhibition halls together with the necessary infrastructure with a view thereafter to letting them to the City of Cologne. In a second step, the City of Cologne would sublet the rented exhibition halls to Kölnmesse whose activities in the organisation and holding of trade fairs and exhibitions were intended to generate the necessary income to cover the payments due from the City of Cologne to GKM.
12. That funding model resulted in a complex system of contract and property relations at the heart of which was the City of Cologne. That body concluded, first, with GKM, on 6 August 2004, an agreement headed ‘lease of property comprising four exhibition halls, a north entrance building, a boulevard and turning to the multi-storey car park, five connecting buildings between the exhibition halls, car parks and external facilities in the Deutz neighbourhood of Cologne, inter alia, in Deutz-Müllheimer-Straße’ (‘the main contract’ or ‘contract of 6 August 2004’), according to which GKM would lease to the City of Cologne the trade fair site together with – following construction – exhibition halls N8, N9, N10 and N11, ancillary buildings, infrastructure, no less than 505 parking spaces and external facilities. The lease was intended to commence on 1 December 2005 for a fixed term of 30 years under normal circumstances. In consideration thereof, the City of Cologne agreed to pay a monthly fee of EUR 1 725 000, subject to the proviso that for the first 13 months of the lease no rent was due.
13. On that basis, the City of Cologne concluded with Kölnmesse on 11 August 2004 an ‘underlease’ (4) providing for the sublease to Kölnmesse of those exhibition halls together with ancillary buildings subject to largely identical conditions (‘the underlease’). According to that agreement, in relation to the underlease of the exhibition halls together with ancillary buildings and attendant infrastructure a standard term of 30 years and a monthly rent of EUR 1 730 000 was agreed, subject to the proviso that for the first 13 months of the lease no rent was due.
14. In order to simplify the implementation of the contractual relations resulting from the main contract and the underlease, the City of Cologne and Kölnmesse concluded, in addition, on 11 and 16 August 2004 an implementing agreement to the underlease by which – with the objective of simplifying coordination and approval procedures in relation to GKM, receipt of technical instructions, exercise of rights and obligations with respect to residual works and defects and in general to avoid legal detriment in the relationship between the parties – the City of Cologne mandated Kölnmesse with the implementation and exercise of most of the rights and obligations which the City of Cologne had undertaken in relation to GKM. However, that mandate expressly excludes ‘rent payments’ which must be effected separately within the framework of each agreement. Moreover, Kölnmesse’s authority to exercise – on behalf of the City of Cologne – rights which modify the legal relationship (cancellation, termination, and so on) is subject in all cases to the city’s prior consent.
15. In preparation for entering into those agreements, the City of Cologne and Kölnmesse had sold the land required for the construction of the new exhibition halls to the private investor at the end of 2003 and, as a result, at the date on which the ‘leases’ were concluded the land concerned was owned by GKM.
16. On 30 November 2005, the exhibition halls were officially transferred from GKM to the City of Cologne.
IV – Pre-litigation procedure
17. Following the lodging of a complaint on 7 September 2005, in which it was alleged that the award of the contract to build the new exhibition halls in Cologne had infringed Community law, by letter of 13 December 2005, the Commission informed the Federal Republic of Germany that, by reason of the fact that in relation to the construction and lease or other letting of the exhibition halls the contracting authorities responsible for that project had failed to issue a Europe-wide invitation to tender under contract award procedures of an open or restricted nature, it could have infringed Article 7 in conjunction with Article 11 of Directive 93/37. Accordingly, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany was called upon, in accordance with Article 226 EC, to respond within two months and produce the contracts concluded between the parties and all other relevant documents.
18. In its reply of 15 February 2006, the Federal Republic of Germany indicated that Kölnmesse did not constitute a contracting authority within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 93/37 and, accordingly, no infringement of Community law had arisen. In response to the Commission’s supplementary letter of formal notice of 28 June 2006 asking the Federal Republic of Germany for additional information and repeating the request to furnish all relevant documents, by letter of 8 September 2006, the Federal Republic of Germany, in substance, reiterated its position on the capacity of Kölnmesse as the awarding body and added that in relation to the works concerned the City of Cologne had effected only legal transactions outside the scope of public procurement law. The Federal Republic of Germany argued also that it had no access to the contracts and other documents of Kölnmesse as the party concerned was a private economic entity. Consequently, the Federal Republic of Germany produced simply the main contract, the underlease, the implementing agreement, a report of the Bezirksregierung Köln (Regional Authority, Cologne) of 27 January 2006 and a letter of intent of 8 December 2003 issued by the City of Cologne to Kölnmesse.
19. By letter of 18 October 2006, the Commission served the Federal Republic of Germany with a reasoned opinion in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 226 EC. In response to that opinion, by letter of 11 December 2006, the Federal Republic of Germany stressed its position on the absence of a substantive infringement of Community law and introduced as a new argument the conveyance of 18 December 2003 concluded between Kölnmesse and GKM prior to the signing of the leases which contained, at the same time, an undertaking by GKM to build accordingly on the trade fair site acquired. In addition, it argued that the works commissioned by Kölnmesse were concluded on completion and handover of the exhibition halls on 1 December 2005 and, accordingly, prior to the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Even if public procurement rules had been infringed, commencement and continuation of the Treaty infringement procedure was inadmissible – so it argued – by reason of the prior completion of the contested works. At the same time, the Federal Republic of Germany produced a five-page excerpt from the notarised conveyance of 18 December 2003.
20. Finally, having regard to an oral assurance given by the mayor of the City of Cologne to the member of the EU Commission responsible for the internal market and services, Mr McCreevy, ‘to refrain in future from such contractual arrangements and, in accordance with existing law, to issue a Europe-wide invitation to tender for contracts in excess of the threshold values mentioned in the procurement directives’, by a further letter of 18 April 2007, the Federal Republic of Germany requested the Commission to close the procedure.
V – Procedure before the Court and forms of order sought by the parties
21. In its application, which was received by the Registry of the Court on 30 November 2007, the Commission claims that the Court should:
– declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 in conjunction with Article 11 of Directive 93/37, by reason of the fact that the City of Cologne concluded with the Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 15‑18 GbR (now Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 8-11) the contract of 6 August 2004, without carrying out a procedure for the award of contracts involving a Europe-wide invitation to tender in compliance with the said provisions;
– order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
22. In its defence received on 25 February 2008, the Federal Republic of Germany contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action;
– order the Commission to pay the costs.
23. Following receipt of the Commission’s reply on 30 April 2008 and the rejoinder of the Federal Republic of Germany on 6 June 2008, the written procedure was concluded.
24. At the hearing on 25 March 2009, the representatives of the Commission and of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany presented their oral arguments.
VI – Main arguments of the parties
25. According to the Commission, by reason of the fact that the City of Cologne, in its capacity as a contracting authority, concluded the main contract of 6 August 2004 – directly linked in an economic sense to the prior conclusion of a conveyance between Kölnmesse and GKM – outside the scope of a public award procedure, the Federal Republic of Germany infringed Articles 7 and 11 of Directive 93/37.
26. The Federal Republic of Germany raises several pleas of inadmissibility and, in addition, considers the action to be unfounded on the merits.
A – Admissibility of the action
27. The Federal Republic of Germany argues that the action for failure to fulfil obligations is inadmissible, first, by reason of the fact that the alleged infringement of procurement law had ceased prior to the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. On the expiry of that period, all works were already complete and had been handed over to the City of Cologne as head tenant. Accordingly, the ‘principal effects’ of the contested contract or award were exhausted prior to that period ending and, as a result, the Commission’s subsequent action – in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law – must be dismissed as inadmissible.
28. According to the Federal Republic of Germany, in examining the issue of admissibility a distinction must be made between the effects of the contested award ‘potentially in breach of procurement law’ and those of a ‘lawful’ nature, subject to the proviso that only effects in the first category are considered relevant in determining whether or not compliance ensued within the period prescribed. Effects ‘potentially in breach of procurement law’ include, in particular, works to be executed by a contractor. On the other hand, ‘lawful’ effects of a works award, not relevant for the purposes of determining admissibility, include a client’s obligations – which must be regarded as neutral – to pay remuneration. Since, in the present case, the works were entirely completed prior to the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the action for failure to fulfil obligations must be rejected as inadmissible. The fact that following expiry of that period the City of Cologne remains liable in relation to ‘neutral’ payment obligations is for the purposes of determining admissibility of no further relevance.
29. The Commission counters that plea of inadmissibility by the argument that it is for the Federal Republic of Germany to prove that GKM executed all relevant works prior to the end of the period in question. In addition, the main contract of 6 August 2004 imposes a series of contractual obligations on GKM and the City of Cologne which must be satisfied during the period of contractual performance and, thus, following the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. An action for failure to fulfil obligations in the area of procurement law is inadmissible by reason of the infringement ending prior to the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion only where on expiry of that period all the effects of the contested contract are exhausted, something which in the context of the present proceedings is clearly not the case.
B – The merits of the action
30. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany considers the action for failure to fulfil obligations to be unfounded, as the contract of 6 August 2004 at issue does not constitute a works contract but – from a functional perspective – simply a contract providing financial security for an agreement between GKM and Kölnmesse governing a grant of use in relation to the exhibition halls following construction, subject to the caveat, moreover, that Kölnmesse cannot be categorised, in any event, as a body governed by public law subject to the procurement directives. Even if that functional analysis is not followed, the main contract at issue in these proceedings, as a matter of form and content, must be categorised as a lease. Depending on the perspective adopted, the leasehold relationship or funding services constitute the main purpose of the contract of 6 August 2004 which, therefore, is excluded, necessarily, from the scope of Directive 93/37.
31. On the other hand, the Commission argues that the main purpose of the main contract of 6 August 2004 is the execution of works – and, in particular, the building of the exhibition halls together with ancillary buildings and attendant infrastructure – and, therefore, must be categorised as a works contract, and in that regard the City of Cologne – by reason of its direct contractual relationship with GKM – must be regarded also as the relevant contracting authority. Thus, the main contract of 6 August 2004 constitutes a public works contract which the City of Cologne awarded in breach of public procurement law, as the Europe-wide invitation to tender required for that project was not issued.
VII – Legal appraisal
A – Admissibility of the action
32. The Federal Republic of Germany principally argues that the action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission is inadmissible because the alleged infringement of procurement law had ceased entirely prior to the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.
33. According to settled case-law, an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC may be brought before the Court only if the Member State concerned has failed to comply with the reasoned opinion within the period laid down by the Commission for that purpose. In that regard, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of that period. (5)
34. In accordance with those general requirements, an action for failure to fulfil obligations must be dismissed as inadmissible where it is apparent that the effects intrinsic to the contested infringement have been exhausted before the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired. (6) Moreover, having regard to its objective, the preliminary procedure is aimed at bringing about the termination of an infringement of Community law prior to the proceedings before the Court such that – consistent with the ratio of that procedure – in the case where an infringement was entirely terminated before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose there is no basis on which to pursue further the action for failure to fulfil obligations. (7)
35. That principle is confirmed by a detailed analysis of the wording of the second paragraph of Article 226 EC, according to which, if the Member State concerned does not comply with the reasoned opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court. Conversely, that implies that the Commission lacks the authority to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations if the infringement contested came to an end or was terminated within the period laid down by the Commission. (8)
36. In relation to an action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations in the area of public procurement that implies that such an action must be dismissed as inadmissible if, when the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired, the contract concluded in breach of the relevant procurement directive had been completely performed. (9) On the other hand, it is irrelevant that the award procedure itself had been entirely completed prior to the expiry of the period laid down. (10)
37. Consequently, the decisive issue in judging the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Federal Republic of Germany is whether, when the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired, that is, on 18 December 2006, the main contract of 6 August 2004 contested by the Commission remained in the performance phase.
38. In my view, relevant performance of the main contract had not been entirely completed on 18 December 2006.
39. Although according to established case-law, in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled and to place before the Court the information needed to enable it to determine whether the obligation has not been fulfilled, (11) in judging a Member State’s plea of inadmissibility based on the fact that the infringement came to an end within the due period – in accordance with the maxim reus in exceptione fit actor – the allocation of the burden of proof is, in principle, reversed.
40. As proof that the substantive works were completed by 1 December 2005, the Federal Republic of Germany submitted an ‘Acceptance protocol concerning the demised premises – Northern extension to the trade fair buildings in Cologne …’ of 30 November 2005 and several press articles concerning the opening of a trade fair on 16 January 2006.
41. Although those documents constitute evidence that the works on the exhibition halls, ancillary buildings and site infrastructure were mostly complete at that date, the acceptance protocol also lists a series of defects and works remaining to be performed. Moreover, that acceptance protocol makes reference to further ‘inspection protocols of 30 October and 11 November 2005’ – not annexed thereto – which also contain details of defects and works remaining to be performed. The documents submitted do not contain specific information on the completion date for those remaining works. In addition, the acceptance protocol states merely that the landlord aims to carry out a substantial proportion of the remaining works and rectification of defects before 18 December 2005. Furthermore, the City of Cologne referred to the fact that on grounds of trade fair activities in the period from 18 December 2005 to 10 March 2006 rectification of defects and completion of remaining works were completely excluded or possible only to a very limited extent and following specific agreement thereto, a factor which indicates that performance of the remaining works would extend over a period of at least several months.
42. In addition, the main contract provides for a series of maintenance obligations on GKM in relation to the roof and walls, on the basis of which throughout the whole term of the agreement GKM may be obliged to execute works of greater or lesser scope on the load-bearing elements, the outside walls, the roofs of the exhibition halls and ancillary buildings and on the seals of the parts of those buildings in contact with the earth. Having regard to the fact that in Annex II to Directive 93/37 the restoration and maintenance of outside walls, water-proofing and damp-proofing and also roofing works are expressly included in building and civil engineering works, and, in particular, construction works, those contractually specified works must be categorised also as an element of a ‘work’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37 and, as a consequence, are relevant for the purposes of determining the action’s admissibility.
43. Thus, on the basis of the case-file, the possibility cannot be excluded, even following the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, that GKM executed or is contractually obliged to execute at a future date works of greater or lesser scope and maintenance activities treated as construction works.
44. Furthermore, the fact must be emphasised that the consideration owed by the City of Cologne – the monthly payment – must be effected on a continuing basis from 1 January 2007 for a term of almost 29 years and, thus, far in excess of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.
45. The argument of the Federal Republic of Germany, according to which in determining the admissibility of an action for failure to fulfil obligations in the area of public procurement the decisive issue is the date on which a contractor completed works awarded in breach of procurement rules whereas the time at which the contracting authority supplies its monetary consideration is for those purposes irrelevant, must be rejected.
46. Neither the wording of Article 1 of Directive 93/37 nor the case-law of the Court implies such a distinction between effects ‘contrary to procurement law’ and ‘legally neutral’ effects resulting from a contract concluded in breach of procurement law.
47. According to Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37, a public works contract is a contract for pecuniary interest between a contractor and contracting authority which has as its object the execution of certain works. Since a public works contract, in accordance with that definition, must be characterised essentially as a synallagmatic contract, from a schematic perspective, in determining admissibility no distinction can be made between works which a contractor is obliged to perform and payment obligations of a contracting authority. It is precisely the obligation on the contracting authority to pay which results in the application of procurement law to the services owed by the contractor. In that context, in his Opinion in Ordine degli Architetti and Others, (12) Advocate General Léger concluded – in my view, correctly – that discrimination by contracting authorities in awarding contracts is unacceptable in the light of the procurement directives for the very reason that awards of contracts entail payment to the contractors who are selected.
48. In addition, it should be pointed out that Directive 93/37 – as follows from the 10th recital in the preamble thereto – facilitates the development of effective competition in the field of public works. If public works are awarded outside the prescribed public award procedure and thus without prior competition, the contracting authority will generally pay more than it would have done had it invited tenders for the works in accordance with procurement law. As a result, consequences of procurement law infringements are to be found precisely in the obligations on contracting authorities to pay, such that for the purposes of procurement law those obligations may hardly be categorised as a ‘neutral’ effect of a contract concluded in breach of procurement law requirements.
49. Thus, in determining whether or not a contract was entirely performed before the end of the period laid down by the Commission in its reasoned opinion, the (pecuniary) consideration due from the contracting authority cannot be classified as ‘neutral for the purposes of procurement law’. Therefore, a continuing obligation on a contracting authority to pay must also be regarded as a legally relevant effect of a contract concluded in breach of the applicable procurement directive.
50. That assessment is supported by the Court’s existing case-law on the admissibility of actions for failure to fulfil obligations in the area of procurement law in which the date of full performance of a contract concluded in breach of procurement law (13) or the date of full exhaustion of effects of that contract or the contract notice at issue (14) was regarded as decisive. That test applies irrespective of whether the award of a supply, service or works contract is at issue and in that sense applies incontrovertibly across the entire field of procurement law.
51. In the light of that test, in principle, the continued existence of an alleged infringement may no longer be questioned if works agreed contrary to the provisions of procurement law are not fully executed before the end of the period laid down by the Commission, that is, irrespective of the extent of the remaining works. Consequently, execution of works following expiry of the period laid down implies in itself the continued existence of the alleged infringement with the result that no further indicia or evidence must be proffered even where the works at issue are only of relatively limited scope. (15) On the other hand, where the works due have been completely executed, an assessment must be made whether or not the contract generates other legally relevant effects.
52. Express confirmation of that principle, according to which in determining admissibility the effects of the contract as a whole are decisive, is to be found in Commission
v Greece . (16) In that case, in the framework of an action for failure to implement obligations in the area of procurement law, the Court had to give judgment on the application of Directive 92/50 to a framework agreement of 20 February 2001 concluded between the competent Greek authorities and the Pan‑Hellenic Association of Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives (PASEGES) and the agreements implementing that framework agreement concluded between the members of PASEGES and the Greek authorities. The implementing agreements provided, in particular, for the unions of agricultural cooperatives (UACs) at a local level to educate the farmers concerned on a new administrative and control system for agricultural aid schemes and to assist those farmers in the preparation and submission of their aid applications. It was the responsibility of PASEGES to coordinate the work of its members. In that context, the Commission’s complaint alleging an infringement of procurement law related simply to the assistance provided by the UACs in the preparation of aid applications concerning the year 2001 whereas the period laid down in the reasoned opinion ended only on 19 February 2004. In determining the admissibility of the action for failure to fulfil obligations, first, the Court reiterated the general principle according to which an action for failure to fulfil obligations is inadmissible if, when the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired, the contract in question had already been completely performed. Accordingly – the Court continued – it must be verified whether, when the period prescribed by the reasoned opinion expired, the contracts at issue were, at least partly, still being performed. In its subsequent factual analysis, the Court stressed the fact that the contracts at issue contained a clause providing for their expiry when all the financial aid had been paid to the farmers who applied for it. As the payment of the aid for 2001 was made in full in the course of the following year and, thus, before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and, consequently, the contracts had completely expired, the Court held that by the date that the period prescribed by the reasoned opinion expired the framework agreement and the contracts at issue had already exhausted all their effects and, as a result, the action for failure to fulfil obligations was dismissed as inadmissible.
53. Thus, in that judgment, the Court treated as decisive not the dates on which the contractor provided the service but the complete expiry of the contract itself, an event arising only following payment of the aid requested.
54. In determining the admissibility of an action for failure to fulfil obligations in the area of procurement law, focusing on the contract in its entirety also takes account of the fact that nowadays even very substantial works projects can be largely executed in a relatively short period, whereas often only by way of a complaint and, thus, with a delay does the Commission learn of the relevant infringement of procurement law. In the same vein, in the present case, too, it appears from the case-file that the Commission was informed of a possible procurement law infringement in relation to the construction of the exhibition halls only by way of a complaint of 7 September 2005, whilst the exhibition halls commenced operations in December 2005, that is, only a few months later. This example demonstrates clearly that too restrictive an approach to the determination of admissibility – which has regard only to the works to be executed by the contractor – adversely affects the effective enforcement of the works procurement directives.
55. In that context, it must be emphasised from a procedural perspective, too, that expiry of the period laid down by the Commission in its reasoned opinion and the subsequent bringing of proceedings do not result necessarily in an actual suspension of the works. Accordingly, if, when the period laid down by the Commission expires, works are, say, 85% complete and the contracting authority denies an infringement of works procurement law, in the standard situation, the works will be completely executed by the date at which judgment is delivered in the subsequent action for failure to fulfil obligations. In that respect, such a case, ultimately, cannot be distinguished in factual terms from a case in which works have been completely executed before the period laid down by the Commission expires but the contracting authority remains obliged to make payments and, on those grounds, at the date on which the prescribed period expires the contract continues to be operative.
56. In the light of the foregoing, I conclude that in determining the admissibility of an action for failure to fulfil obligations in the area of works procurement law it must be verified whether a contract concluded contrary to the requirements of procurement law has completely exhausted all its effects prior to the expiry of the period laid down by the Commission. Such effects include the payment of pecuniary consideration by the contracting authority.
57. In summary, therefore, a plea of inadmissibility on the ground that an infringement came to an end prior to the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion must be rejected where on the expiry of that period the contract was, at least partly, still being performed and, in that regard, the provision of (pecuniary) consideration by the contracting authority must be characterised also as a form of contractual performance relevant for the purposes of resolving that plea.
58. In the light of those observations, the fact that following expiry of the prescribed period the City of Cologne provided (pecuniary) consideration on a monthly basis or was obliged to make such provision suffices in the present case to establish that on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion the contract of 6 August 2004 was, at least partly, still being performed and, therefore, produced legally relevant effects.
59. In the light of the foregoing, the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Federal Republic of Germany on the ground that the alleged infringement came to an end prior to the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion cannot be accepted. In my view, therefore, nothing precludes the admissibility of the action.
B – The merits of the action
1. Introductory observations
60. The arguments advanced by the Federal Republic of Germany in support of its contention that the present action for failure to fulfil obligations is unfounded are essentially based on the view that GKM was not awarded a ‘public works contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37 and – in the alternative – that in any event the works were not awarded by way of the contract of 6 August 2004 concluded by the City of Cologne. The Federal Republic of Germany supports those main lines of argument through its categorisation of the main contract of 6 August 2004 as a lease or funding agreement.
61. Having regard to the long-term grant of use established therein, it is clear that the contract of 6 August 2004 includes a substantial services element. Accordingly, it must be examined below whether and, if so, to what extent that contract, in addition, exhibits also the characteristics of a public works contract and whether the characteristics of a public works contract established suffice to bring the entire (mixed) agreement within the scope of Directive 93/37. However, those questions are preceded by the argument of the Federal Republic of Germany that in the present case, from a procurement law perspective, it is not the City of Cologne but Kölnmesse which must be regarded as the true awarding body.
2. Whether the City of Cologne is the awarding body in relation to GKM
a) The City of Cologne must be characterised as the awarding body in relation to GKM
62. It is uncontested that the main contract of 6 August 2004 was concluded between the City of Cologne and GKM and that the City of Cologne then concluded an ‘underlease’ with Kölnmesse. However, having regard to the functional reading of the concept of a ‘contracting authority’ in the case-law of the Court and the willingness of the Court evidenced therein to undertake a comprehensive global analysis of complex procurement law arrangements with a view to determining the true nature of the contracts awarded and subsequently their lawfulness, the Federal Republic of Germany argues that in functional terms and on a global analysis for the purposes of procurement law, in the present case, Kölnmesse must be categorised as the true awarding body in relation to GKM.
63. Although it is correct to assert that the Court held at an early stage that the concept of a contracting authority must be interpreted not in formal but in functional terms, (17) it must be stressed that such case-law does not rest on an overarching principle of procurement law, requiring the concept of a ‘contracting authority’ to be assessed in a purely functional manner and without regard to the contractual structure chosen for the award. Instead, that case-law testifies to the efforts of the Court to break up closed national procurement markets and – in accordance with the objectives stated in the recitals in the preambles to the procurement directives – to open them to the common market. (18) Against that background, the Court has adopted a functional interpretation for the concept of a ‘contracting authority’, according to which, for the purposes of categorising a national body as a contracting authority within the meaning of Community procurement law, it is irrelevant whether or not national law links that characteristic to specific institutional features. (19)
64. Moreover, in the cases in which in its review of legality the Court took account of the context surrounding complex procurement law arrangements, that approach was pursued always with the aim of ensuring – with a view to attaining freedom of establishment at the same time as freedom to provide services in the field of public works contracts – the effectiveness of the procurement directives. (20)
65. In the present case, there are no factors suggesting that the contractual arrangements chosen by GKM, the City of Cologne and Kölnmesse in which the City of Cologne features as the principal awarding body should be ignored on a teleological interpretation of Directive 93/37.
66. First, it must be pointed out that the City of Cologne did not assign to Kölnmesse its rights and obligations arising from the ‘lease’ of 6 August 2004 and, as a result, a direct contractual link between Kölnmesse and GKM is absent. (21) Although the ‘underlease’ concluded between the City of Cologne and Kölnmesse reflects, in essence, obligations arising from the contract of 6 August 2004, and the implementing agreement includes rules to coordinate and simplify the implementation of headlease and underlease relations, in relation to GKM, ultimately only the City of Cologne has rights and obligations derived directly from the contract of 6 August 2004. (22) In addition, prior to the conclusion of those agreements it had been agreed that Kölnmesse’s de facto assumption of the payment obligation incumbent on the City of Cologne would be terminated from 2012, if it became apparent that Kölnmesse was unable to generate sufficient income through its trade fair operations to cover monthly payments. (23)
67. Second, it would run counter to the attainment of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the field of public works contracts to give contracting authorities the opportunity, as a result of too generous an interpretation of a functional concept of an awarding body, to obscure the true identity of the awarding body through the use of complex contractual arrangements and, on that basis, to obtain a procedural advantage. In proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations in the area of procurement law, information is often distributed asymmetrically with the Commission not always immediately having access to the necessary details to disentangle the contractual arrangements chosen by the parties. If a functional interpretation of the procurement law concept of an awarding body results in an entity not directly party to the procurement contract having the potential in its capacity as the ‘true awarding body (in functional terms)’ to replace the ‘official contract awarding body’, many actions for failure to fulfil obligations in the area of procurement law run the risk of foundering as a result of the procedural prohibition – applied especially strictly in infringement proceedings (24) – on amendment or extension to the subject-matter of the proceedings, where, for example, in the pre-litigation procedure the ‘incorrect’ awarding body or the ‘incorrect’ procurement contract was specified. (25)
68. In the present case, the argument advanced by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to Kölnmesse’s capacity as the awarding body is tantamount to a procedural allegation that in its pleadings the Commission did not raise a potential infringement of the procurement directive by Kölnmesse. Given that, in infringement proceedings, the Court is limited to an assessment of those pleas clearly set out by the Commission in its application – according to the Federal Republic of Germany – the issue of whether in its capacity as the true awarding body of the contested contract Kölnmesse should have invited tenders does not constitute the subject-matter of the present infringement proceedings.
69. For the reasons I have already stated, the argument of the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to the capacity of Kölnmesse as awarding body is mistaken. Neither by reference to a functional rendering of the concept of a ‘contracting authority’ nor on a teleological interpretation of Directive 93/37 can the role of the City of Cologne as a contracting party and awarding body in relation to GKM be called into question.
70. That all leads me to conclude that in the present case it is not Kölnmesse but the City of Cologne which must be characterised as the entity which awarded the contract to GKM.
b) Alternatively, in the case that Kölnmesse must be characterised as the ‘true’ awarding body in relation to GKM
71. In order to accommodate the situation where the Court reaches a different finding on the capacity of Kölnmesse as the awarding body, I will briefly set out below – in the alternative – the consequences which result.
72. It follows from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – as established by settled case-law – that an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based, and that that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Court to rule on the application. It is therefore necessary for the essential points of law and of fact on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and for the heads of claim to be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita
or indeed fail to rule on an objection. (26)
73. Both in the pre-litigation procedure and in its application, the Commission contended that the Federal Republic of Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 in conjunction with Article 11 of Directive 93/37, by reason of the fact that the City of Cologne concluded with GKM the main contract of 6 August 2004 without carrying out a procedure for the award of contracts involving a Europe‑wide invitation to tender in compliance with the said provisions. Consequently, the Commission unambiguously framed its claim in such a manner that only that contract of 6 August 2004 concluded by the City of Cologne constitutes the subject-matter of the present infringement proceedings.
74. Thus, if the Court holds that Kölnmesse must be regarded as the true awarding body, in the present case the Commission’s action for failure to fulfil obligations must be dismissed.
75. On that hypothesis, a multiplicity of additional issues of law and fact must be resolved, to which in the present case the parties have given little or no consideration, for example, whether or not, in its capacity as a trade fair organisation, Kölnmesse fulfils the characteristics of a ‘contracting authority’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 93/37 and, as a result, European procurement law rules apply – in particular, directly – in relation to that organisation.
76. In principle, the issue of whether or not a trade fair organisation may be classified within the concept of a contracting authority for the purposes of the procurement directives may be resolved only on a case-by-case basis and having regard to all the individual circumstances. However, in relation to Kölnmesse, it should be noted that there are several features in the case-file which appear to permit its inclusion, in principle, under the concept of a contracting authority within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 93/37.
77. According to Article 1(b) of Directive 93/37, a body governed by public law – and hence also a contracting authority – means any body having legal personality, established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, and financed, for the most part, by the State, or regional or local authorities, or other bodies governed by public law, or under the control of such bodies.
78. In determining whether a trade fair organisation such as Kölnmesse satisfies the three main characteristics of a contracting authority, the requirements of legal personality and public authority control are likely to cause few problems. In addition, in Agorà and Excelsior the Court held that activities relating to the organisation of fairs, exhibitions and other similar initiatives must be regarded as meeting needs in the general interest. (27)
79. Although the concept of a body governed by public law must be understood in a functional sense (28) and in general given a broad meaning, (29) the matter is likely to be less obvious whether a trade fair organisation such as Kölnmesse also satisfies the requirement that the needs in question lack an industrial or commercial character, especially as in Agorà and Excelsior
the Court ruled that the Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano (Governing Board for the Milan International Fair) could not be included as a body governed by public law for the purposes of Article 1(b) of Directive 92/50 because it satisfied needs of an industrial and commercial character. (30)
80. However, in that respect, the analysis in support of the judgment in Agorà and Excelsior does not appear to apply without more ado to German trade fair organisations such as Kölnmesse, especially as in its most recent case-law on the requirement for bodies governed by public law not to meet needs of a commercial or industrial character the Court – in particular in Ing. Aigner (31) and Korhonen and Others (32) – placed increased emphasis on whether or not the body in question carries on its activities in a situation of competition. According to the Court, in that connection, factors pointing strongly in favour of the needs to be met having a commercial or industrial character are, in particular, that the body in question operates in normal market conditions, aims to make a profit, and bears the losses associated with the exercise of its activity. (33)
81. In the light of those observations, in respect of German trade fair organisations it should be noted in general at the outset that those organisations are generally employed by the Länder
and municipalities as a tool for promoting regional economic development in order to strengthen the economic attractiveness of the area concerned. In that respect, such trade fair bodies exhibit particular similarity to Wirtschaftsförderungsgesellschaften
(organisations promoting economic development) which under heading III.2 of Annex I to Directive 93/37 are expressly mentioned as bodies governed by public law referred to in Article 1(b). (34)
82. To the extent that publicly owned trade fair organisations are used as a tool for economic promotion, their activities do not focus, furthermore, simply on the commercial maximisation of profit. (35) In that connection, in providing subsidies and guarantees on behalf of trade fair organisations, cities and municipalities influence the German market for fairs and, as a result, those organisations ultimately occupy a special position in terms of competition. (36)
83. On a teleological interpretation of the public procurement directives, above all, that special position in terms of competition occupied by publicly-owned German trade fair organisations constitutes – in the light of Ing. Aigner and Korhonen and Others – an extremely strong indication that the needs met by those organisations are not of an industrial or commercial character. (37)
84. According to settled case-law, the purpose of the directives concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public contracts is to avert both the risk of preference being given to national tenderers or applicants whenever a contract is awarded by the contracting authorities and the possibility that a body financed or controlled by the State, regional or local authorities or other bodies governed by public law may choose to be guided by other than economic considerations. (38)
85. Thus, if in a specific case it is apparent that a trade fair organisation does not operate under normal market conditions and does not, itself, bear in full the losses associated with exercise of its activity, there is a genuine risk that an award procedure may have regard to considerations other than economic considerations and, thus, may be carried out on conditions which are not economically justified. (39) In my view, in such a case, the needs met by the organisation must be regarded as not of an industrial or commercial character and, as a result, such a trade fair organisation must be categorised – provided the remaining conditions are satisfied – as a contracting authority for the purposes of the procurement directives.
3. The mixed works and services character of the main contract of 6 August 2004
86. As I have discussed already, in the present case, for the purposes of procurement law, the City of Cologne must be regarded as the awarding body and contracting entity in relation to GKM. (40) Thus, the next issue to be clarified is whether the main agreement of 6 August 2004 concluded between the City of Cologne and GKM exhibits the essential characteristics of a public works contract within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37.
87. According to settled-case law, the definition of a public works contract within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37 is a matter for Community law. (41) Thus, in determining whether or not GKM was awarded a public works contract, neither German law nor the description of the contract chosen by the parties is relevant.
88. In that connection, the fact cannot be overlooked that the present case is linked, in addition, to the issue of contractus simulatus (sham contracts), where the legal classification of such contracts is based principally – as is the case in national legal orders, too – on the actual content of the agreement. (42)
89. In its definition of a public works contract, Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37 presupposes that, between a contractor and a contracting authority, a contract for pecuniary interest was concluded in writing which has as its object either the execution, or both the execution and design, of works defined in detail in that directive, by whatever means, in accordance with the requirements specified by the contracting authority.
90. That concept of a public works contract must be interpreted in the light of the objectives of Directive 93/37 which – as follows from the recitals in the preamble thereto – aims to facilitate the simultaneous attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of public works contracts (43) and the development of effective competition in that field. (44) Those objectives may equally be undermined where the contracting authority awards a contract for a work in which, following completion, the authority is granted more or less comprehensive rights either in rem or under the law of obligations. The risk of a distortion of competition brought about by the preferential treatment of some operators in relation to others is always present where a contracting authority decides to entrust a work to an undertaking, irrespective of the reasons and context for construction of the work or the purpose to which it is to be put. (45)
91. Therefore, in determining whether by way of the main contract of 6 August 2004 the City of Cologne awarded to GKM a contract for the construction of the exhibition halls having procurement law relevance, the fact that GKM – in its capacity as developer – implemented the construction on land which it owned, whereas, in principle, the City of Cologne was granted simply long-term contractual rights of use in relation to the works at issue, is not decisive. (46) Nor is it decisive whether the City of Cologne or Kölnmesse, ultimately, has a legally enforceable repurchase option over the property including exhibition halls. (47)
92. In a similar vein, the Court held in Auroux
that an agreement by which the French municipality of Roanne had entrusted a semi-public urban development undertaking with the construction of a leisure centre constituted a public works contract within the meaning of Article 1(a) of the directive notwithstanding the fact that substantial elements of that centre were intended to be sold to third parties and the elements intended for the municipality were to be transferred to it only after construction. The argument that neither the element of the centre intended to be sold to third parties nor the element to be transferred to the municipality only after completion could constitute the object of a public works contract within the meaning of Article 1(a) was rejected by the Court, since – on its view – the matter was irrelevant whether or not the parties anticipated that the municipality of Roanne was or would become the owner of all or part of that work. (48)
93. Thus, in order to verify whether a contract exhibits the essential characteristics of a works contract having procurement law relevance, the decisive factor consists in an objective determination that the main purpose of the contract is the execution of a work for pecuniary interest.
94. Consequently, in the present case, in classifying the main contract of 6 August 2004 for procurement law purposes the decisive factor is whether that agreement – in addition to elements governed by the law of landlord and tenant – also includes a scheme for the execution (and planning) of the exhibition halls in accordance with the stated requirements of the City of Cologne.
95. Although the main contract of 6 August 2004 was characterised by the parties as a ‘lease of property comprising four exhibition halls, a north entrance building, a boulevard and turning to the multi-storey car park, five connecting buildings between the exhibition halls, car parks and external facilities in the Deutz neighbourhood of Cologne, inter alia, in Deutz-Müllheimer-Straße’ and an explicitly worded obligation on GKM to execute the works concerned is absent, satisfaction of the obligations governed by the law of landlord and tenant presumes necessarily prior execution of the entire works. At the time the contract was concluded, the ‘leased’ premises fully remained to be constructed, and as a result an obligation to construct the halls concerned together with ancillary buildings and attendant infrastructure implicitly – but incontestably – was inherent within the scope of the main contract.
96. That analysis is confirmed by various more or less explicit references mentioning the obligation on GKM to execute the substantive works which are evident on a detailed examination of the wording of the main contract of 6 August 2004.
97. The heading of Article 2 of the contract worded ‘Execution, fitting-out and use of the demised premises’ constitutes in itself strong evidence. In that connection, the phrase ‘execution of the demised premises’ refers unambiguously to an obligation on GKM to execute the construction of the exhibition halls in accordance with the requirements listed in that section of the contract. That follows in particular from Article 2(1) of the contract which, although stating in the opening sentence that the premises concerned are simply to be ‘made available’, following stipulations concerning the fittings, dimensions, type and characteristics of the exhibition halls records that GKM is obliged to ensure ‘execution of no less than average type and quality’, a phrase which in turn refers naturally to the execution of the works. Thus, the particularly detailed (49) ‘statement of characteristics’ recorded in that section of the contract must be interpreted, in fact, as client specifications for the construction of the exhibition halls to be executed by GKM.
98. Although Article 2(1) of the contract states also that the detailed specification of works and planning documents were jointly compiled by the contracting parties, it follows clearly from the submissions of the Federal Republic of Germany that the construction of the exhibition halls including ancillary buildings and attendant infrastructure executed by GKM was in accordance with stated requirements, that is, ‘to order’. (50)
99. In addition, the characterisation of the main contractor engaged by GKM to perform the works as operating in the capacity of a ‘vicarious agent’ of GKM in relation to the City of Cologne (51) is clearly a further expression – as the Commission, in my view, correctly asserts – of a contractual obligation owed by GKM to the City of Cologne to execute the works.
100. Thus, in my view, the main contract of 6 August 2004 also includes detailed rules on the execution of works on the exhibition halls including ancillary buildings and attendant infrastructure corresponding to the requirements specified by the City of Cologne, implying the conclusion therein of a detailed substantive obligation on GKM – in anticipation of the obligations governed by the law of landlord and tenant – to construct the exhibition halls and other buildings in accordance with the contract.
101. Thus, the main contract of 6 August 2004 exhibits the essential characteristics of a public works contract within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37.
102. None the less, the fact must not be overlooked that this main contract, in addition to the obligation on GKM to execute the works, also expressly records that party’s obligation to let the premises following construction to the City of Cologne for a fixed term, and even regulates that aspect in considerable detail. Such long-term grant of use must be characterised as letting and thus as a service and, as a result, the main contract contains both works and services elements.
103. Thus, by way of interim conclusion, it must be held that the main contract of 6 August 2004 has as its object both the provision of works and services and, thus, must be characterised for the purposes of procurement law as a mixed or composite contract.
4. Determination of the main purpose of the mixed main contract of 6 August 2004
104. Where a contract contains both elements relating to a public works contract and elements relating to services, according to consistent case-law it is the main purpose of the contract that determines which Community directive on public procurement is to be applied in principle. (52) That need for an assessment of the predominant nature of the tasks involved for the purposes of distinguishing the material scope of Directive 93/37 (public works) from that of Directive 92/50 (public services) was expressly recognised in the 16th recital in the preamble to the latter directive, which states that for a contract to be a public works contract its object must be the achievement of a work. However, in so far as works are incidental rather than the object of the contract, they do not justify treating the contract as a public works contract. (53)
105. Unlike in the case of a mixed contract for both products and services where in accordance with Article 2 of Directive 92/50 the predominant element of the contract must be determined simply by reference to the value of each of the aspects, (54) in the case of a mixed contract for both services and works in addition to a comparison of the respective cost prices an objective analysis of the contract as a whole must be undertaken. (55)
106. Admittedly, in the present case, the total value of the payments to be made by the City of Cologne over a term of 30 years – ignoring future ‘rent increases’ – can be expressed relatively easily in absolute figures as EUR 598 575 000. However, in the absence of objective contractual criteria for such assessment, specific numerical apportionment of that sum according to the works and services elements contained in the contract of 6 August 2004 is, in practice, an impossible task.
107. None the less, the case-file provides sufficient additional information with which – on an objective examination of the overall project – to determine the main purpose of the contract of 6 August 2004.
108. It is evident that Kölnmesse had been working on plans for the construction of new exhibition halls since the 1990s and as a result of a series of events in 2003 those plans rapidly developed a specific form. In those circumstances, under pressure of time, Kölnmesse and the City of Cologne jointly sought to find a funding or investor model to fund immediate construction of the exhibition halls and in that regard settled, ultimately, on the main contract of 6 August 2004 concluded with GKM. (56) Thus, immediate construction of the exhibition halls in accordance with the requirements specified by the City of Cologne provided the context for that contract and, accordingly, the works to be executed by GKM were clearly paramount.
109. In that regard, it must be stressed that the specifications imposed by the City of Cologne in relation to the construction of the exhibition halls by GKM – inasmuch as this may be deduced from the case-file – far exceed the usual requirements of a tenant in relation to newly constructed premises, a factor which again shifts the predominant nature of the contract towards a public works contract. (57)
110. In addition, the case-file contains very strong indications of an arrangement between the parties according to which following the expiry of the 30-year contractual term Kölnmesse was to be granted the opportunity to purchase the property including the exhibition halls at a price of EUR 70 million – fixed prior to the conclusion of the principal agreement – representing the estimated future value of the land (without any buildings). Although the contract of 6 August 2004 does not expressly confirm those arrangements, public statements by the city treasurer of Cologne, (58) the official responsible for the contract negotiations, and a report of the Bezirksregierung Köln of 27 January 2006 on the construction of the new exhibition halls (59) indicate unambiguously that the City of Cologne was convinced that it had secured for Kölnmesse a right of first refusal over the property at the same price – fixed in advance – of EUR 70 million.
111. It is apparent from the report of the Bezirksregierung Köln of 27 January 2006 on the construction of the new exhibition halls, which includes a chronological summary of the contractual negotiations with GKM, that a ‘draft lease’ for a term of 30 years and an annual ‘rent’ of EUR 20.7 million – that is, EUR 1 725 000 monthly – had been negotiated at the end of 2003, and in that regard ‘the cash value of the transaction [had been calculated on the basis] of a purchase price of EUR 70 million in the year 2036’. Although that purchase option never became a binding contractual term, it is evident that the ‘rent’ of EUR 1 725 000 mentioned in that draft was incorporated, ultimately, in the principal agreement of 6 August 2004. Thus, the remuneration regime applicable to the City of Cologne established by the main contract is based unambiguously on the calculations underlying the draft contract, according to which on the expiry of the contractual term GKM would transfer the trade fair site to Kölnmesse in consideration for the purchase price of some EUR 70 million. (60) Nor does the existence of the 13-month rent-free period, evidently agreed at a subsequent date, preclude that analysis, especially as argument to that effect was advanced by the Federal Republic of Germany neither in its discussion and interpretation of that rent-free period nor in its comprehensive analysis of the repurchase or right of first refusal options. According to the argument of the Federal Republic of Germany – advanced both in its rejoinder and at the hearing – concession of such a rent-free period is a wholly standard market practice by which the yield on a rental property may be increased in formal terms, to the benefit of the landlord.
112. Ultimately, the question of whether, after all, Kölnmesse was granted a legally enforceable right of first refusal over the property at a predetermined price of EUR 70 million may be left unanswered. The decisive fact is that the City of Cologne and GKM concluded the main agreement evidently on the assumption that the trade fair site – which GKM had acquired from the City of Cologne and Kölnmesse shortly beforehand in an unbuilt state for some EUR 67 million – including exhibition halls, following expiry of the contractual term, could be purchased by Kölnmesse for EUR 70 million and, as a result, the contractual arrangements at issue in these proceedings, ultimately, are based on that assumption.
113. In my view, it follows from those findings that the monthly payments to be made by the City of Cologne must be regarded primarily as instalment payments for the works executed by GKM. Thus, taking the perspective of the remuneration regime chosen by the parties, the main contract of 6 August 2004 appears – by reference to its predominant features – to be a works contract subject to an extended payment regime and, in that regard, the nature of the contemporaneous grant of use is dependent on the term of the extended payment regime and, therefore, results necessarily from the real purpose of the main contract, that is, the execution of works.
114. That analysis is confirmed by the contractual scheme governing the allocation of any increases or reductions in the costs of the works which may be necessary by reason of client amendments to the approval and execution plans as a result of requirements imposed by the authorities, the inspecting structural engineer or utility supply and waste-disposal undertakings. According to the main contract, (61) the City of Cologne and GKM must reach an agreement by which those increased or reduced costs of GKM are offset, a scheme implying, ultimately, an economic allocation of the risks, an allocation which corresponds to that applicable between client and contractor in the framework of a works contract.
115. On an objective assessment of the entire project and, in particular, the contractual arrangements made in the present case, having regard to the foregoing, the conclusion is inevitable that the main purpose of the contract concluded between GKM and the City of Cologne was not so much a fixed-term grant of use over the works following their construction but the construction of those works. Accordingly, the objective of the main contract of 6 August 2004 was primarily for the City of Cologne to procure works, and in that regard the long-term grant of use over the works following their construction functioned as a device for funding those works. In that connection, the monthly ‘rent’ payment of EUR 1 725 000 must be regarded primarily as consideration for the works executed by GKM, with the 30-year term of that payment and the attendant grant of use existing principally for financial reasons.
116. In the light of the foregoing, I conclude, in addition, that the elements of a public works contract included in the main contract of 6 August 2004 constitute the main purpose of that contract and, as a result, it lies within the material scope of Directive 93/37.
5. Conclusion
117. In the light of the foregoing analysis, it should be concluded that the main contract of 6 August 2004 at issue in this case must be characterised as a public works contract within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37 which, consequently, the City of Cologne in its capacity as contracting authority should have awarded – in accordance with Article 7(4) of that directive – in the framework of an open or restricted procedure and in compliance with the publication requirements established in Article 11.
VIII – Costs
118. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Federal Republic of Germany has been unsuccessful, I consider that it should be ordered to pay the costs.
IX – Conclusion
119. In view of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should:
(1) declare by reason of the fact that the City of Cologne directly concluded with the Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 15-18 GbR the contract of 6 August 2004, without carrying out a Community-wide award procedure in accordance with the provisions specified and in compliance with the provisions on publication applicable thereto, that the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 in conjunction with Article 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts;
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) .
(2)  –	OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.
(3)  –	OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
(4)  –	The full title of that agreement is worded: ‘underlease of property comprising four exhibition halls, a north entrance building, a boulevard and turning to the multi-storey car park, five connecting buildings between the exhibition halls, car parks and external facilities in the Deutz neighbourhood of Cologne, inter alia, in Deutz-Müllheimer-Straße’.
(5)  –	Judgment of 17 July 2008 in Case C-311/07 Commission
v Austria, paragraph 26; Case C‑319/06 Commission v Luxembourg [2008] ECR I-4323, paragraph 72; Case C‑412/04 Commission v Italy [2008] ECR I-619, paragraph 42; Case C-525/03 Commission v Italy [2005] ECR I-9405, paragraph 13 et seq.; Case C-29/01 Commission v Spain [2002] ECR I-2503, paragraph 11; Case C-3/96 Commission v Netherlands [1998] ECR I-3031, paragraph 36; and Case C-60/96 Commission v France
[1997] ECR I-3827, paragraph 15.
(6)  –	Case C-525/03 Commission v Italy, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 16.
(7)  –	To that effect, see the earlier view of Advocate General Lenz in his Opinion in Case C-362/90 Commission v Italy
[1992] ECR I-2353, point 11 et seq.
(8)  –	To that effect, see also the Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Case C‑237/05 Commission v Greece
[2007] ECR I-8203, point 62.
(9)  –	Case C-237/05 Commission v Greece
[2007] ECR I-8203, paragraph 29, in relation to Directive 92/50. See also Case C-394/02 Commission v Greece
[2005] ECR I‑4713, in relation to Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84). To that effect, see also Lenaerts, K., Arts, D. and Maselis, I., Procedural Law of the European Union, 2nd edition, London, 2006, p. 159 et seq., paragraph 5-052.
(10)  –	The Court decisively rejected the strictly formal perspective, according to which Community procurement law must be regarded as a wholly procedural set of rules, with the result that the effects of any infringement of those provisions are automatically exhausted on the commission of such an act; see Joined Cases C-20/01 and C-28/01 Commission v Germany
[2003] ECR I‑3609, paragraphs 31 to 37.
(11)  –	Case C-159/94 Commission v France
[1997] ECR I-5815, paragraph 102, and Case 96/81 Commission v Netherlands [1982] ECR 1791, paragraph 6.
(12)  –	Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Case C-399/98 [2001] ECR I-5409, point 94.
(13)  –	Commission
v Germany, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 35 et seq.
(14)  –	Case C-328/96 Commission v Austria [1999] ECR I-7479, paragraphs 42 to 45, and Case C‑362/90 Commission v Italy [1992] ECR I-2353, paragraph 11.
(15)  –	Case C-394/02 Commission
v Greece, cited in footnote 9, must be interpreted in that vein. First, the Court affirmed the principle that an action for failure to fulfil obligations is inadmissible if, when the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired, the contract in question had already been completely performed. Since, in the case in question, only 85% of the contractual works had been completed on the expiry of that period, the plea of inadmissibility was rejected.
(16)  –	Case C-237/05, cited in footnote 9, paragraph 29 et seq.
(17)  –	Case 31/87 Beentjes [1988] ECR 4635, paragraph 11; Case C-360/96 BFI Holding [1998] ECR I-6821, paragraph 62; Case C-237/99 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-939, paragraph 43; and Case C-470/99 Universale-Bau and Others
[2002] ECR I-11617, paragraph 53.
(18)  –	See Marx, F. and Prieß, H., in Jestaedt, T., Kemper, K., Marx, F. and Prieß, H., Das Recht der Auftragsvergabe, Neuwied, 1999, p. 16.
(19)  –	See, for example, Beentjes, cited in footnote 17, paragraph 11, in which the Court emphasised that the term ‘the State’ contained in Article 1 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 682) must be interpreted in functional terms because the aim of the directive, which is to ensure the effective attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of public works contracts, would be jeopardised if the provisions of the directive were to be held to be inapplicable solely because a public works contract is awarded by a body which, although it was set up to carry out tasks entrusted to it by legislation, is not formally a part of the State administration.
(20)  –	See, for example, Case C-29/04 Commission v Austria [2005] ECR I-9705.
(21)  –	A different conclusion might be necessary if, from the outset, the City of Cologne had acted on behalf of Kölnmesse and subsequently had assigned to Kölnmesse all its rights and obligations arising from the contract of 6 August 2004. In that regard, in Case C-44/96 Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria [1998] ECR I-73, paragraph 42 et seq., the Court held that a public works contract awarded by a contracting authority ceases to be subject to the provisions of Directive 93/37 if, before completion of the work, the contracting authority transfers its rights and obligations arising from the call for tenders to an undertaking which is not itself a contracting authority, provided that from the general context it is apparent that the contract was awarded on behalf of that undertaking and, in addition, relates to a project which, from the outset, falls entirely within the objects of the undertaking. On that point, see also Bovis, C., ‘Case C-44/96 Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria AG’, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 36, 1999, p. 205, at p. 212.
(22)  –	In the implementing agreement, the City of Cologne mandated Kölnmesse with the full implementation and exercise of all rights and obligations which the city had undertaken in relation to GKM, subject to the proviso that rights modifying the legal relationship ( Gestaltungsrechte ) could be exercised only with the city’s prior consent. Therefore, that contractual arrangement does not imply that the City of Cologne assigned its rights and obligations to Kölnmesse, but simply that in relation to GKM Kölnmesse could exercise those rights and obligations on behalf of the City of Cologne. In addition, the City of Cologne reserved the right at any time to terminate the implementation agreement in full or in part and to prohibit Kölnmesse from exercising contractual rights and obligations on behalf of the city vis-à-vis GKM.
(23)  –	That agreement is evidenced, in particular, by a letter of intent from the City of Cologne to Kölnmesse of 8 December 2003 which expressly stated that the amount of rent due from Kölnmesse to the City of Cologne would have to be adjusted in the light of the new economic position of the undertaking, if after 2012 Kölnmesse was unable to generate additional events to cover the additional costs arising. That commitment was expressly confirmed by a letter of intent from the City of Cologne to Kölnmesse of 14 July 2004, according to which, in a binding manner, the City of Cologne indicated its willingness under certain economic conditions to adjust the rent payment due from Kölnmesse under the (under)lease of the new exhibition halls following their construction.
(24)  –	See, for example, Rengeling, H.-W., Middeke, A. and Gellermann, M., Handbuch des Rechtsschutzes in der Europäischen Union, Munich, 2003, § 23, point 37, p. 426.
(25)  –	In accordance with settled case-law, the subject-matter of the proceedings brought under Article 226 EC is circumscribed by the pre-litigation procedure provided for by that provision and, consequently, both the Commission’s reasoned opinion and the application must be based on the same complaints. Although that requirement does not mean that in every case the statement of complaints in the letter of formal notice, the operative part of the reasoned opinion and the form of order sought in the application must be exactly the same, none the less, in all cases, the subject-matter of the proceedings may not be extended or altered. On the other hand, limitation of the subject-matter of the dispute is permitted (see Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraphs 23 and 25; Case C-229/00 Commission v Finland
[2003] ECR I-5727, paragraphs 44 and 46; and Case C‑433/03 Commission v Germany [2005] ECR I‑6985, paragraph 28). In addition, in its application the Commission may clarify its initial grounds of objection provided in all cases, however, that it does not alter the subject-matter of the dispute (see Case C‑195/04 Commission v Finland
[2007] ECR I-3351, paragraph 18 with further references).
(26)  –	Case C‑412/04 Commission v Italy, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 103, and Case C‑195/04 Commission v Finland, cited in footnote 25, paragraph 22. To that effect, see also Case C‑296/01 Commission v France [2003] ECR I-13909, paragraph 121, and Joined Cases 46/59 and 47/59 Meroni v High Authority [1962] ECR 411, 419.
(27)  –	Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 [2001] ECR I-3605, paragraph 33 et seq. The Court justified that finding, in particular, by the fact that an organiser of such events, in bringing together manufacturers and traders in one geographical location, does not act solely in the individual interest of those manufacturers and traders, who are thereby afforded an opportunity to promote their goods and merchandise, but also provides consumers who attend the events with information that enables them to make choices in optimum conditions. In its view, the stimulus to trade which results may be considered to fall within the general interest.
(28)  –	Case C-337/06 Bayerischer Rundfunk and Others
[2007] ECR I-11173, paragraph 36 et seq.
(29)  –	Case C-373/00 Adolf Truley
[2003] ECR I-1931, paragraph 43. To that effect, see also the Opinion of Advocate General Mazák of 16 December 2008 in Case C‑300/07 Hans & Christophorus Oymanns, point 27.
(30)  –	Agorà and Excelsior, cited in footnote 27, paragraph 35 et seq. On that issue, the Court stated that the organisation of fairs, exhibitions and other similar initiatives is an economic activity which involves offering services on the market place. Those services, so the Court held, are provided in consideration for payment and, in so doing, commercial needs are met. Even if the body in question in that case was non-profit-making, according to the Court, it operated, as was evident from Article 1 of its articles of association, according to criteria of performance, efficiency and cost-effectiveness and there was no mechanism for offsetting any financial losses, and as a consequence it had to bear the economic risk of its activities itself. Moreover, a relevant criterion was the fact that the fair operated in a competitive environment. On those criteria, see Brown, A., ‘Joined Cases C-223/99 and C‑260/99: the definition of contracting authorities and of needs in the general interest that lack a commercial character’, PPLR, 2001, p. 107, at p. 109.
(31)  –	Case C-393/06 [2008] ECR I-2339, paragraph 41.
(32)  –	Case C-18/01 [2003] ECR I-5321, paragraph 49. See also Case C-283/00 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-11697, paragraph 81 et seq.
(33)  –	Korhonen and Others, cited in footnote 32, paragraph 51.
(34)  –	To that effect, see Marx, F., in Motzke, G., Pietzcker, J. and Prieß, H., Beck’scher VOB‑Kommentar Verdingungsordnung für Bauleistungen Teil A, 1st edition, § 98 Auftraggeber, point 32; Werner, M., in Byok, J. and Jaeger, W., Kommentar zum Vergaberecht, Heidelberg, 2000, § 98, point 313; Byok, J. and Goodarzi, R., ‘Messegesellschaften und Auftragsvergabe’, NVwZ, 2006, p. 281, at p. 285. See also Dreher, M., in Dreher, M. and Stockmann, K., Kartellvergaberecht, 4th edition, Munich, 2008, § 98, point 136, who argues that, consequently, trade fair organisations, on balance, must be regarded as contracting authorities.
(35)  –	To that effect, see Marx, F. and Prieß, H., cited above in footnote 18, p. 38 et seq., who argue that the holding of markets and fairs constitutes a public service and that, in general, such activity can be financed only through the investment of substantial public funds. According to those authors, the decisive argument for treating such trade fair bodies as contracting authorities is precisely the fact that those organisations do not constitute industrial or commercial undertakings whose sole aim is the maximisation of profit.
(36)  –	Byok, J. and Goodarzi, R., cited above in footnote 34, p. 285, with many examples illustrating that special position in terms of competition.
(37)  –	On that issue, see Dreher, M., cited above in footnote 34, § 98, point 77, who points out that the absence of a commercial or industrial character, ultimately, is the same as holding a special position in the market as a result of public intervention. See also the Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Case C-44/96 Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria
[1998] ECR I-73, point 69, in which he emphasised that the Community legislature intended that the procurement directive should apply to entities meeting needs in the general interest whose activities escape market forces, in whole or in part.
(38)  –	See, in particular, Korhonen and Others, cited in footnote 32, paragraph 52, and Universale-Bau and Others, cited in footnote 17, paragraph 52.
(39)  –	On that issue, see also the Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in Case C‑126/03 Commission v Germany [2004] ECR I-11197, point 32, in which he stressed that a body which aims to make a profit and bears the losses associated with the exercise of its activity will not normally become involved in an award procedure on conditions which are not economically justified.
(40)  –	See point 62 et seq. of this Opinion.
(41)  –	Case C-220/05 Auroux [2007] ECR I-385, paragraph 40. In relation to Directive 92/50, see Case C-264/03 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-8831, paragraph 36.
(42)  –	The assessment, whereby in the case of a contractus simulatus
legal classification of the contract concerned is based on the actual content of the agreement, is to be found already in the Roman Law maxim plus valere quod agitur, quam quod simulate concipitur (Justinian Code, title to book 4.22). In that connection, Paragraph 117(2) of the German BGB (Civil Code) also provides that if a sham transaction hides another legal transaction, the provisions applicable to the hidden transaction will apply. Thus, in the case of transactions which are not subject to requirements as to form, in accordance with the rule falsa demonstratio non nocet, the hidden transaction – intended by the parties – applies (on that point, see Larenz, K. and Wolf, M., Allgemeiner Teil des deutschen bürgerlichen Rechts, 9th edition, Munich, 2004, § 35, point 34). A similar provision to that German rule is contained in Article 50(2) of the Slovenian Obligacijski zakonik (Code on the law of obligations) (on that point, see Dolenc, M., in Juhart, M. and Plavšak, N. (eds), Obligacijski zakonik s komentarjem, First Book, GV založba, Ljubljana, 2003, commentary on Article 50, p. 207). In the same vein, the second sentence of Paragraph 916(1) of the Austrian ABGB (Civil Code) provides that a hidden transaction must be assessed in accordance with its true characteristics. That basic approach may be discerned both in French and Belgian law, too, in that in the classification of contracts courts may override the description which the parties have applied to the contract in order to determine the true nature of the contract and, thus, the provisions applicable (for France, see Le Tourneau, Ph., Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, 6th edition, Paris, 2006, point 3615; for Belgium, see Cornelis, L., Algemene theorie van de verbintenis, Antwerp, 2000, point 229). Under Article 1281(2) of the Spanish Codigo Civil (Civil Code), too, in the case of conflict, the parties’ evident intent takes precedence over the wording of the contract. On the basis of that provision, by judgment of 28 May 1990 (summarised in Moreno Gil, O., Código civil y jurisprudencia concordada, 4th edition, Madrid, 2006, point 4.230), the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) held that in the classification of an agreement it is not the description chosen by the parties but the contractual obligations contained therein which are decisive.
(43)  –	Second recital in the preamble to Directive 93/37.
(44)  –	Tenth recital in the preamble to Directive 93/37.
(45)  –	To that effect, see the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-220/05 Auroux
[2007] ECR I-385, point 43.
(46)  –	To that effect, see Franke, H., in Grabitz, E. and Hilf, M., Das Recht der Europäischen Union, Volume 4, Munich, 30th update June 2006, B. 8. Bauaufträge, point 11. Egger, A., Europäisches Vergaberecht, 1st edition, Vienna, 2008, point 719, observes in that connection that the procurement law definition of public works includes precisely construction ‘by whatever means’ and thus must apply also to property leasing arrangements where a lessor effects a work in accordance with the requirements of the client/lessee.
(47)  –	On the other hand, in determining – in qualitative terms – the main purpose of a mixed works and services contract, the assessment that the parties concluded their agreement on the assumption that such a repurchase option exists may be highly significant. See point 110 et seq. of this Opinion.
(48)  –	Auroux, cited in footnote 41, paragraph 47.
(49)  –	In that regard, reference is made in particular to the appended specifications and schedules of works and to the detailed building plans, schemes and further planning documents annexed to the contract in appendices covering several thousand pages.
(50)  –	In paragraph 67 of its defence, the Federal Republic of Germany expressly affirmed that ‘the exhibition halls were indeed constructed according to the requirements specified – within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37/EEC – by Kölnmesse’.
(51)  –	Article 17(2) of the main contract.
(52)  –	Case C‑412/04 Commission v Italy, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 47, and Auroux, cited in footnote 41, paragraph 37. See also Case C-331/92 Gestión Hotelera Internacional
[1994] ECR I-1329, paragraph 29.
(53)  –	Recital 10 in the preamble to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) incorporates that recital in material terms and reiterates it as follows: ‘… Public service contracts, in particular in the sphere of property management services, may, in certain circumstances, include works. However, in so far as such works are incidental to the principal subject-matter of the contract, and are a possible consequence thereof or a complement thereto, the fact that such works are included in the contract does not justify the qualification of the contract as a public works contract.’
(54)  –	See, for example, Case C-340/04 Carbotermo [2006] ECR I-4137, paragraph 31, and Case C‑107/98 Teckal [1999] ECR I-8121, paragraph 38.
(55)  –	Case C‑412/04 Commission v Italy, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 48.
(56)  –	See point 10 et seq. of this Opinion.
(57)  –	On that point, see Trepte, P., Public Procurement in the EU. A Practitioner’s Guide, 2nd edition, Oxford, 2007, p. 246 et seq., who argues that in order to classify a contract granting use of a property under the concept of a public works contract the decisive factor is that premises were constructed according to the specifications of the contracting authority and the developer would not have built the property concerned without the prior commitment of the contracting authority. In the same vein, see also Eschenbruch, K., ‘Immobilienleasing und neues Vergaberecht’, BB-Beilage, No 5, 2000, p. 8, at p. 11, who argues that in a case of ‘real property leasing’ a works contract must be presumed when the contracting authority exercises decisive influence over the architecture (design) of the premises or otherwise decisively intervenes in the planning of the building and does not restrict itself to the establishment of certain user-specific requirements.
(58)  –	Annexed to the Commission’s pleadings as Appendix I was an interview given to the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger newspaper by the city treasurer of Cologne published in the edition of 5/6 September 2005, the content of which was discussed and examined in detail by the Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany. In that interview, the city treasurer confirmed that the Stadtsparkasse (municipal savings bank) which had brokered the deal with GKM stood by its commitment guaranteeing Kölnmesse the right to repurchase the exhibition site for EUR 70 million and that Kölnmesse could rely on that commitment. In that connection, he stressed that ‘in 30 years time neither from an economic nor a legal point of view can the plug be pulled on the trade fair organisers’.
(59)  –	Report of the Bezirksregierung Köln, Messe Köln: Neubau der Messehallen. Ergebnis der vergabe- und kommunalrechtlichen Bewertungen, of 27 January 2006, which includes a history of the contract negotiations.
(60)  –	At the hearing, in response to questioning, the Federal Republic of Germany conceded that it was unable to provide an objective explanation why omission of the repurchase option – on which it relied in argument – had not influenced the calculation of the rent.
(61)  –	Article 2(3)(d) of the main contract of 6 August 2004.