44

It is in that context that the Klagenævnet for Udbud (Public Procurement Complaints Board) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) (a) Are the principles of equal treatment and transparency laid down in Article 18(1) of [Directive 2014/24] and Article 49 of [that directive], in conjunction with points 7 and 10(a) of Part C of Annex V [thereto], to be interpreted as meaning that the contract notice in a case such as the present must contain information on the estimated quantity and/or the estimated value of the supplies under the framework contract to which the tender relates? (b) If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the Court is also asked whether the above provisions are to be interpreted as meaning that the information must be stated in respect of the framework contract (a) as a whole and/or (b) in respect of the original contracting authority which stated its intention to conclude an agreement on the basis of the invitation to tender (in the present case: Region of North Jutland) and/or (c) in respect of the original contracting authority which merely stated that it is participating in an option (in the present case: Region of Southern Denmark). (2) (a) Are the principles of equal treatment and transparency laid down in Article 18(1) of [Directive 2014/24] and Articles 33 and 49 of [Directive 2014/24], in conjunction with points 7 and 10(a) of Part C of Annex V to Directive 2014/24, to be interpreted as meaning that either the contract notice or the tender specifications must set a maximum quantity and/or a maximum value of the supplies under the framework contract to which the tender relates, such that the framework contract in question will no longer have any effect when that limit is reached? (b) If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the Court is also asked whether the above provisions are to be interpreted as meaning that the above maximum limit must be indicated in respect of the framework contract (a) as a whole and/or (b) in respect of the original contracting authority which stated its intention to conclude an agreement on the basis of the invitation to tender (in the present case: Region of North Jutland) and/or (c) in respect of the original contracting authority which merely stated that it is participating in one option (in the present case: Region of Southern Denmark). (3) If the answer to Question 1 and/or Question 2 is in the affirmative, the Court is further asked – in so far as it is relevant to the content of those answers – to answer the following question: Is Article 2d(1)(a) of [Directive 92/13], read in conjunction with Articles 33 and 49 of [Directive 2014/24], in conjunction with points 7 and 10(a) of Part C of Annex V to Directive 2014/24, to be interpreted as meaning that the condition that “the contracting entity has awarded a contract without prior publication of a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union” covers a case such as the present where the contracting authority has published a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union concerning the envisaged framework contract, but (a) where the contract notice does not meet the requirement to indicate the estimated quantity and/or the estimated value of the supplies under the framework contract to which the tender relates since an estimate thereof is set out in the tender specifications, and (b) where the contracting authority has breached the requirement to set in the contract notice or the tender specifications a maximum quantity and/or a maximum value of the supplies under the framework contract to which the call for tenders relates?’