Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions raised in a context that excludes a useful answer – Questions bearing no relation to the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Duty of Member States to make provision for a review procedure – Interlocutory procedure

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18; Council Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/50, Arts 1(1) and (3), and 2(1) and (6)

3. Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Duty of Member States to make provision for a review procedure – Interlocutory procedure

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18; Council Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/50)

4. EU law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals

Summary

1. The Court of Justice may not give a preliminary ruling on a question submitted by a national court when it is quite obvious that the ruling sought by that court on the interpretation or validity of EU law bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, when the problem is hypothetical, or when the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.

(see para. 43)

2. Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) and (6) of Directive 89/665 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 92/50, do not preclude a system in which, in order to obtain a rapid decision, the only procedure available is characterised by the fact that it is designed to enable swift adoption of a mandatory measure, that lawyers have no right to exchange views, that no evidence is, as a rule, presented other than in written form, that statutory rules on evidence are not applicable, and that the judgment does not lead to the final determination of the legal situation and does not form part of a decision-making process leading to such a final decision.

As is stated in the fifth recital of Directive 89/665, the short duration of procedures for the award of public contracts means that infringements of provisions of EU law need to be dealt with urgently.

Given that objective, the said directive leaves Member States a discretion in the choice of the procedural guarantees for which it provides, and the formalities relating thereto.

(see paras 51, 57, 59, 65, operative part 1)

3. Directive 89/665 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 92/50, must be interpreted as not precluding a court hearing an application for interim measures, for the purposes of adopting a provisional measure, from carrying out an interpretation of Directive 2004/18 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts which is, subsequently, classified as erroneous by the court hearing the substance of the case.

On the one hand, the court hearing an application for interim measures is called upon to give a decision in the context of an urgent procedure in which both the gathering of evidence and the examination of the pleas of the parties are necessarily more cursory than in the context of the proceedings on the substance. On the other hand, the intervention of the court hearing an application for interim measures is not designed, like that of the court hearing the substance, to rule definitively on the claims presented to it but to protect provisionally the interests at stake, possibly by balancing them.

(see paras 77, 80, operative part 2)

4. As regards State liability for damage caused to individuals by infringements of EU law for which the State may be held responsible, the individuals harmed have a right to redress where the rule of EU law which has been infringed is intended to confer rights on them, the breach of that rule is sufficiently serious, and there is a direct causal link between the breach and the loss or damage sustained by the individuals. When there exist no provisions of EU law in that area, it is for the internal legal order of each Member State, once those conditions have been complied with, to determine the criteria on the basis of which the damage arising from an infringement of EU law on the award of public contracts must be determined and estimated, provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.

(see para. 92, operative part 3)