EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/19

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschlandradio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen v GEWA Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH

(Case C-337/06) (1)

(Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Public service contracts - Public broadcasting bodies - Contracting authorities - Bodies governed by public law - Condition that the activity of the institution be ‘financed, for the most part, by the State’)

(2008/C 51/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschlandradio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen

Defendant: GEWA Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH

Intervener in support of the defendant: Heinz W. Warnecke

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of indent (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) and Article 16(b) 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 public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134 of 30.4.2004, p. 114) — Award of cleaning services by an association of broadcasting bodies indirectly financed by the State without compliance with formal European procurement procedure — Concept of ‘contracting authority’.

Operative part of the judgment

1) The first condition of the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that there is financing, for the most part, by the State when the activities of public broadcasting bodies such as those in the main proceedings are financed for the most part by a fee payable by persons who possess a receiver, which is imposed, calculated and levied according to rules such as those in the main proceedings;

2) The first condition of the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as meaning that, that, if the activities of public broadcasting bodies such as those in the main proceedings are financed according to the procedures set out when examining the first question, the condition of ‘financing … by the State’ does not require that there be direct interference by the State or by other public authorities in the awarding, by such bodies, of a contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings;

3) Article 1(a)(iv) of Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as meaning that only the public contracts specified in that provision are excluded from the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.