Case C-229/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in the case of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom & Partner, 3. Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger
Date: 2002-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, interpretation of the law, supplies contract, tendering, works contract

C 219/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.9.2002

Is a CD-ROM drive which is equipped with a jack for
headphones, a volume control button and a button to insert
and remove CDs, but which cannot by itself reproduce
graphics, audio, data and text, to be classified for the period
1 January 1995 to 21 November 1995 under heading
8521 90 00 in accordance with classification practice laid
down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2564/95 (1), or
under heading 8471 93 51 in accordance with the classifi-
cation practice laid down in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2491/96 (2) and the decision adopted by the Harmonized
System Committee of
the World Customs Organization
(Doc. 40.260 E and Doc. 40.600 E)?

( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2564/95 of 27 October 1995
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined
nomenclature (OJ L 262 of 1.11.1995, p. 25).

( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2491/96 of 23 December 1996
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ
L 338 of 28.12.1996, p. 14).

Question 2:

In the event that the answer given to Question 1 is no:

Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning
that, if a tenderer’s bid is not eliminated by the contracting
authority, but the review body finds in the course of the review
procedure that the contracting authority would have been
bound to eliminate it, the tenderer has been or risks being
harmed by the infringement alleged by him — in this case the
finding by the contracting authority that a rival tenderer
submitted the best bid — and that he must therefore have the
right to bring a review procedure?

(1) OJ L 395 [1989], p. 33.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in the case
of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom & Partner, 3.
Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against Hauptver-
band der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt (Austria) by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in
the review procedure between Grossmann Air Service
GmbH & Co KG and the Bund (Republic of Austria)

(Case C-229/02)

(2002/C 219/03)

(Case C-230/02)

(2002/C 219/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Federal Public Procurement Office) of 14 May 2002, received
at the Court Registry on 20 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom
& Partner, 3. Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against
Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger
on the following questions:

Question 1:

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Federal Public Procurement Office) of , received at the Court
Registry on 20 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
review procedure between Grossmann Air Service GmbH &
Co KG and the Bund (Republic of Austria) on the following
questions:

Question 1:

Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
ber 1989 (1) 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 to be interpreted as meaning that any person seeking
the award of a specific pending public contract is entitled to
institute a review procedure?

Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of
21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
works contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the review
procedure must be available to any undertaking which has
submitted a bid, or applied to participate, in a public procure-
ment procedure?