Judgment of the Court (rch 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — eVigilo Ltd v Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos
(Case C-538/13)
connection into account — Burden of proving bias on the part of an expert — Such bias having no effect on the final result of the evaluation — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Challenging the abstract award criteria –Those criteria clarified after the exhaustive reasons for the award of the contract had been communicated — Degree of the tenders’ conformity with the technical specifications as an evaluation criterion)Language of the case: LithuanianReferring courtLietuvos Aukščiausiasis TeismasParties to the main proceedingsApplicant: eVigilo LtdDefendant: Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos supported by: ‘NT Service’ UAB, ‘HNIT-Baltic’ UABOperative part of the judgment1.    The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the
ceedings — Challenging the abstra
ct award criteri
a –Those criteria clarified afte
r the exhaustive reasons for the
award of the contract
had been communicated — Degree of the tenders’ conformity with the technical specifications as a
n evaluation criterion)Language of the case: Lith
uanianReferring courtLietuvos
Aukščiausiasis TeismasParties to the main proceedingsApplicant: eVigilo LtdDefendant: Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos supported by: ‘NT Service’ UAB, ‘HNIT-Baltic’ UABOperative part of the judgment1.    The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Articles 2, 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of 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 pub
04/18 must be interpreted as allowing, in principle, a contracting authority to use, as an evaluation criterion of tenders submitted by the tenderers for a public contract, the degree to which they are consistent with the requirements in the tender documentation.