Case C-364/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works supported by the intervener ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’ (STEAT)
Date: 2004-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, award of contract, interpretation of the law, public contract, reduced price, works contract

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/7

The appellant claims that the Court should:

uphold the appeal and annul the order of the Court of First
Instance.

(2) If the reply to the first question is affirmative, is it suffi-
cient, in order to satisfy the requirements of the abovemen-
tioned provision of Directive 93/37/EEC, for the document
to mention the specific discount offered by the tenderer for
one or more groups of prices adjudged by the contracting
authority to be problematic or must the latter also indicate
the reasons why it regards such discount as problematic by
providing a reasoned appraisal concerning the maximum
cost for carrying out the relevant works?

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant submits that, contrary to the decision of the
Court of First Instance, his action brought on 18 December
2002 was not out of time.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the
case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of the Environ-
ment, Planning and Public Works supported by the inter-
‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron
veners

(1)
Taxeon’ (STEAT) and (2) ‘Enklidis ATE’

(Case C-363/04)

(2004/C 284/14)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the
case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of the Environ-
ment, Planning and Public Works supported by the inter-
vener ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’
(STEAT)

(Case C-364/04)

(2004/C 284/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
(Council of State, 4th Section, Greece) of 30 July 2004,
received at the Court Registry on 20 August 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry
of Culture and against the Ministry of the Environment, Plan-
ning and Public Works and against
(1)
‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’ (STEAT) and
(2) ‘Enklidis ATE’ on the following questions:

the interveners

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
(Council of State, 4th Section, Greece) of 30 July 2004,
received at the Court Registry on 20 August 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry
of the Environment, Planning and Public Works and against the
intervener ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’
(STEAT) on the following questions:

(1) Must Article 30(4) 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) be interpreted as meaning that,
in the case of a
tendering procedure such as that described in the grounds
hereof (offers not accompanied by a justificatory report,
indicating the specific discount percentages applied to each
group of prices and verification as to whether discounts are
at a normal level), the contracting authority is required to
give a specific content to the document in which it requests
a bidder to provide explanations concerning an offer which
has been adjudged abnormally low in regard to a threshold
determined by application of a mathematical method
having characteristics analogous to those of the mathema-
tical method described in the grounds of this order?

(1) Must Article 30(4) 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) be interpreted as meaning that,
in the case of a
tendering procedure such as that described in the grounds
hereof (offers not accompanied by a justificatory report,
indicating the specific discount percentages applied to each
group of prices and verification as to whether discounts are
at a normal level), the contracting authority is required to
give a specific content to the document in which it requests
a bidder to provide explanations concerning an offer which
has been adjudged abnormally low in regard to a threshold
determined by application of a mathematical method
having characteristics analogous to those of the mathema-
tical method described in the grounds of this order?

C 284/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.11.2004

(2) If the reply to the first question is affirmative, is it suffi-
cient, in order to satisfy the requirements of the abovemen-
tioned provision of Directive 93/37/EEC, for the document
to mention the specific discount offered by the tenderer for
one or more groups of prices adjudged by the contracting
authority to be problematic or must the latter also indicate
the reasons why it regards such discount as problematic by
providing a reasoned appraisal concerning the maximum
cost for carrying out the relevant works?

having characteristics analogous to those of the mathema-
tical method described in the grounds of this order?

(2) If the reply to the first question is affirmative, is it suffi-
cient, in order to satisfy the requirements of the abovemen-
tioned provision of Directive 93/37/EEC, for the document
to mention the specific discount offered by the tenderer for
one or more groups of prices adjudged by the contracting
authority to be problematic or must the latter also indicate
the reasons why it regards such discount as problematic by
providing a reasoned appraisal concerning the maximum
cost for carrying out the relevant works?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the
case of Tholos Anonimi Tekniki Touristiki Emboriki Pliro-
foriki Biomekaniki Eteria (Tholos AE) against the Ministry
of the Environment, Planning and Public Works supported
by the interveners (1) Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion
Anoteron Taxeon and (2) Thessaliki Anonimi Tekniki
Etairia, ‘Thessaliki ATE’

(Case C-365/04)

(2004/C 284/16)

Appeal brought on 24 August 2004 (Fax: 20.08.04) by
Deutsche Post AG and DHL Express (Italy) S.r.l. (formerly
operating under the name of DHL International S.r.l)
against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the Court of
the European Communities (Second
First
Chamber, Extended Composition)
in Case T-358/02
between Deutsche Post AG and DHL International S.r.l.
and the Commission of
the European Communities,
supported by the Italian Republic and Poste Italiane SpA

Instance of

(Case C-367/04 P)

(2004/C 284/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
(Council of State, 4th Section, Greece) of 30 July 2004,
received at the Court Registry on 20 August 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Tholos Anonimi Tekniki Touristiki
Emboriki Pliroforiki Biomekaniki Eteria (Tholos AE) against the
Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works and
against
(1) Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion
Anoteron Taxeon and (2) Thessaliki Anonimi Tekniki Etairia,
‘Thessaliki ATE’, on the following questions:

the interveners

(1) Must Article 30(4) 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) be interpreted as meaning that,
in the case of a
tendering procedure such as that described in the grounds
hereof (offers not accompanied by a justificatory report,
indicating the specific discount percentages applied to each
group of prices and verification as to whether discounts are
at a normal level), the contracting authority is required to
give a specific content to the document in which it requests
a bidder to provide explanations concerning an offer which
has been adjudged abnormally low in regard to a threshold
determined by application of a mathematical method

An appeal against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second
Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-358/02 between
Deutsche Post AG and DHL International S.r.l. and the
Commission of the European Communities, supported by the
Italian Republic and Poste Italiane SpA, was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 August
2004 (Fax: 20.08.04) by Deutsche Post AG and DHL Express
(Italy) S.r.l. (formerly operating under the name of DHL Interna-
tional S.r.l.), represented by Jochim Sedemund and Thomas
Lübbig, lawyers at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Potsdamer
Platz 1, D-10785 Berlin.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1. set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 27 May
2004 in Case T-358/02 (1), and declare the action brought
by Deutsche Post AG and DHL Express
(Italy) on 3
December 2002 admissible.

2. order the respondent and the interveners to pay the costs.