Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2002 in Case C-470/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien: Universale-Bau AG, Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Hinteregger & Söhne Bauges. mbH Salzburg, 2. ÖSTU-STETTIN Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH, v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GesmbH (Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Definition of "contracting authority" — Body governed by public law — Restricted procedure — Rules for weighting of criteria for selecting candidates invited to tender — Advertisement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures relating to public procurement — Time-limits for review)
Date: 2003-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, interpretation of the law, legal person, public contract, works contract

25.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Articles 7, 14, 16(1) and (3) and 17 to 19 of that convention
are not referred to therein;

of 10 December 2002

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

in Case C-29/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Council of the European Union (1)

(International agreements — Convention on Nuclear Safety
— Accession decision — Compatibility with the Euratom
Treaty — External competence of the Community —
Articles 30 to 39 of the Euratom Treaty)

(2003/C 19/01)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-29/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: T. F. Cusack and L. Ström) v Council of the European
Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, F. Anton and A. P. Feeney):
Application for annulment in part of the Council Decision of
7 December 1998 approving the accession of the European
Atomic Energy Community to the Nuclear Safety Convention,
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents
of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von
Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in
which it:

1. Annuls the third paragraph of the declaration made by the
European Atomic Energy Community according to the pro-
visions of Article 30(4)(iii) of the Nuclear Safety Convention,
which is attached to the Council Decision of 7 December 1998
approving the accession of
the European Atomic Energy
Community to the Nuclear Safety Convention, in so far as

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the
Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 12 December 2002

in Case C-470/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien: Universale-
Bau AG, Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Hinteregger & Söhne
Bauges. mbH Salzburg, 2. ÖSTU-STETTIN Hoch- und
Tiefbau GmbH, v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering
GesmbH (1)

(Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Defi-
nition of ‘contracting authority’ — Body governed by public
law — Restricted procedure — Rules for weighting of
criteria for selecting candidates invited to tender — Adver-
tisement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures
relating to public procurement — Time-limits for review)

(2003/C 19/02)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-470/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for

C 19/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.1.2003

a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Universale-Bau AG, Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Hin-
teregger & Söhne Bauges.mbH Salzburg, 2. ÖSTU-STETTIN
Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH, and Entsorgungsbetriebe Sim-
mering GesmbH, on the interpretation of Article 1(a), (b) and
(c) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning
the coordination of procedures for the award of public works
contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), and Council Directive 89/
665/EEC of 21 December 1989 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 (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended
by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), and
F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:

1. A body which was not established to satisfy specific needs in
the general
interest not having an industrial or commercial
character, but which has subsequently taken responsibility for
such needs, which it has since satisfied, fulfils the requirement
of the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of
Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
coordination of procedures for
the award of public works
contracts so as to be regarded as a body governed by public law
within the meaning of that provision, on condition that the
assumption of responsibility for the satisfaction of those needs
can be established objectively.

2.

Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 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 Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts, does not preclude national legislation which provides
that any application for review of a contracting authority’s
decision must be commenced within a time-limit laid down to
that effect and that any irregularity in the award procedure
relied upon in support of such application must be raised within
the same period, if it is not to be out of time, with the result
that, when that period has passed, it is no longer possible to
challenge such a decision or to raise such an irregularity,
provided that the time-limit in question is reasonable.

3. Directive 93/37 is to be interpreted as meaning that where, in
the context of a restricted procedure, the contracting authority
has laid down in advance the rules for weighting the criteria for
selecting the candidates who will be invited to tender, it is
obliged to state them in the contract notice or tender documents.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2002

in Case C-153/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Onderzoeksrechter in de Rechtbank van eerste aanleg
te Turnhout): Paul der Weduwe (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Banking activities —
Employee of a credit institution established in a Member
State and canvassing for clients in another Member State —
National legislation on banking secrecy — Refusal to answer
questions and to give evidence in a judicial investigation)

(2003/C 19/03)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-153/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Onderzoeksrechter in de Rechtbank van eerste
for a preliminary ruling in
aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium)
the criminal proceedings before that court against Paul der
Weduwe, on the interpretation of Article 49 EC, the Court,
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Third and
the Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 10 December 2002, in which it has ruled:

The reference for a preliminary ruling by the Onderzoeksrechter in de
Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium), by order of
13 April 2000, is inadmissible.

( 1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.

(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.