Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — Kansaneläkelaitos

(Case C‑269/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(4) — Service concession — Definition — Aggregation of contracts between a social security authority and taxi companies providing for an electronic scheme for direct reimbursement of transport costs of insured persons and a system of booking journeys’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law — Jurisdiction of the national court — Application of the provisions interpreted (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 25)

2. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Scope — Public service concession — Meaning — Contract providing for the levy, by the other party to the contract, of remuneration from third parties — Included — Conditions — Transfer to the other party to the contract of all, or at least a significant proportion, of the risks related to the operation of the service at issue — Assessment by the national court (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 1(4)) (see paras 28, 31-35, 41, operative part)

Operative part

Article 1(4) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an aggregation of contracts, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may be considered to constitute a ‘service concession’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that the contracting authority has transferred the entirety of, or a significant share of, the risk which it bears in relation to the economic exploitation of the services; this being a matter which must be determined by the referring court taking into account all the inherent characteristics of the services covered by that aggregation of contracts.

( 1 ) OJ C 261, 11.08.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — Kansaneläkelaitos

(Case C‑269/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(4) — Service concession — Definition — Aggregation of contracts between a social security authority and taxi companies providing for an electronic scheme for direct reimbursement of transport costs of insured persons and a system of booking journeys’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law — Jurisdiction of the national court — Application of the provisions interpreted (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 25)

2. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Scope — Public service concession — Meaning — Contract providing for the levy, by the other party to the contract, of remuneration from third parties — Included — Conditions — Transfer to the other party to the contract of all, or at least a significant proportion, of the risks related to the operation of the service at issue — Assessment by the national court (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 1(4)) (see paras 28, 31-35, 41, operative part)

Operative part

Article 1(4) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an aggregation of contracts, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may be considered to constitute a ‘service concession’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that the contracting authority has transferred the entirety of, or a significant share of, the risk which it bears in relation to the economic exploitation of the services; this being a matter which must be determined by the referring court taking into account all the inherent characteristics of the services covered by that aggregation of contracts.

( 1 ) OJ C 261, 11.08.2014.