Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-249/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Werner Hackermüller v BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and WED Wiener Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures relating to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Article 1(3) — Persons to whom review procedures are accessible)
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, interpretation of the law, public contract, supplies contract, works contract

C 184/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 19 June 2003

in Case C-249/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Werner Hackermüller v BIG
Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and WED Wiener
Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (1)

(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
procedures relating to the award of public supply and public
works contracts — Article 1(3) — Persons to whom review
procedures are accessible)

(2003/C 184/14)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-249/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Werner Hackermüller and BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft
mbH and WED Wiener Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH — on
the interpretation of Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/
EEC of 21 December 1989, on the coordination of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the appli-
cation 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:
the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet, President of
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues,
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
19 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December
1989, on the coordination of the laws, regulations and admin-
istrative provisions relating to the application of review proce-
dures to the award of public supply and public works contracts,
as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992
the award of
relating to the coordination of procedures for
public
review
procedures provided for by that directive should be accessible to
a person seeking the award of a specific public contract only
where he risks being harmed by the infringement alleged by
him.

contracts, does not preclude

service

that

the

2. Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/
to the review

50, precludes a tenderer being refused access

the decision of

procedures provided for by the abovementioned directive in order
to challenge the validity of
the contracting
authority not to consider his tender offer as the best bid, on
the ground that that tender was bound to have been eliminated
beforehand by the contracting authority for other reasons and
that, as a result, he was not or did not risk being harmed by
the
review
procedure to which the aforementioned tenderer is entitled, the
tenderer must be allowed to challenge the validity of the ground
for exclusion on the basis of which the review body intends to
conclude that he was not or did not risk being harmed by the
decision the validity of which he challenges.

infringement he alleges.

context of

In the

the

(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 12 June 2003

in Case C-275/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the House of Lords): Sinclair Collis Ltd v Commissioners
of Customs and Excise (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exempt transac-
tions — Letting of immovable property — Meaning —
Cigarette vending machines installed in commercial premises)

(2003/C 184/15)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-275/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the House of Lords for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Sinclair Collis
Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the inter-
pretation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/
388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ
1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting
the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
as President of
Pergola
Judges;
Jann and S. von Bahr,
S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in
which it has ruled:

(Rapporteur), P.