Case C-423/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstrasse by order of that court of 30 July 2001 in the case of Emil Färber GmbH & Co. v Stadt Neustadt/Weinstrasse
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial aid, interpretation of the law, legal person, meat processing industry, quasi-fiscal charge, tax relief

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/17

Question 3

Does Article 30(1) and (2) of Directive 93/37/EEC in conjunc-
tion with the principles of transparency and equal treatment
prohibit a contracting authority from making the acceptance
of an alternative tender, which differs from a tender con-
forming to the tender document in that it proposes a different
technical quality, conditional on a positive assessment based
on a criterion in national
‘the
performance of qualitatively equivalent work is ensured’ if the
tender document refers only to the national provision and
does not specify the comparative parameters to be used to
assess ‘equivalence’?

legislation requiring that

Question 4a

If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, may a
contracting authority conclude a tendering procedure like that
described in Question 3 by awarding the contract?

Question 4b

If the answers to Questions 3 and 4a are in the affirmative,
must a contracting authority conducting a tendering procedure
as described in Question 3 reject variants proposed by
tenderers without examining their contents, at any rate if it
has not defined contract award criteria for assessing the
technical differences between the variant and the tender
document?

Question 5

If the answers to Questions 3 and 4a are in the affirmative and
the answer to Question 4b is in the negative, must a contracting
authority conducting a tendering procedure as described in
Question 3 accept a variant whose technical differences from
the tender document it is unable to assess on the basis of
contract award criteria owing to the absence of appropriate
statements in the tender document if
this variant is the
cheapest tender and contract award criteria have not otherwise
been defined?

(1) OJ L 199, p. 54.

I(2)

1. On a proper construction of the second subparagraph of
Chapter
in Annex A to Council Directive
85/73/EEC (1) as amended and consolidated by Council
Directive 96/43/EC (2),
is an establishment which is
situated in the same building as a cutting plant but whose
operator is a natural or legal person other than the
operator of the cutting plant also to be regarded as the
‘establishment where the meat is obtained’?

2. Which criteria are relevant to the fee-levying authority’s
decision regarding the extent
to which it grants a
reduction of the fees of up to 55 % as provided for in the
second subparagraph of Chapter I(2) in Annex A to the
abovementioned directive?

In that regard, may in particular the fact that staff need
less time to carry out the controls or inspections also be
taken into consideration where the fees in respect of such
controls and inspections are determined by the addition
of a standard amount pursuant to the first subparagraph
under (a) of Chapter I(2) in Annex A to the abovemen-
tioned directive?

Moreover, if Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,
when reducing the fee, may account nevertheless be taken
of the fact that the establishments situated in one building
are attributable to operators regarded in law as distinct,
and may this in principle lead to a situation where in
such cases less of a reduction is granted than in cases
where the slaughterhouse and cutting plant are not only
situated in the same building but are also operated by the
same natural or legal person?

(1) OJ L 32 of 5.2.1985, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 162 of 1.7.1996, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Neustadt an der Weinstrasse by order of that court
of 30 July 2001 in the case of Emil Färber GmbH & Co. v
Stadt Neustadt/Weinstrasse

(Case C-423/01)

(2002/C 3/25)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt (Austria) by order of 25 October 2001 in the case
of CS Communications & Systems Austria GmbH v
Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt

(Case C-424/01)

(2002/C 3/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
(Administrative Court) Neustadt an der Weinstrasse of 30 July
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Emil Färber
GmbH & Co. v Stadt Neustadt/Weinstrasse on the following
questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 25 October 2001 by
the Bundesvergabeamt (Austrian Federal Procurement Office),
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of CS Communications &
Systems Austria GmbH v Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsan-
stalt on the following questions: