Case C-148/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato, Quinta Sezione lodged on  20 March 2006  — Santorso Soc. coop. arl v Comune di Torino
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, award of contract, interpretation of the law, public contract, works contract

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Campina GmbH & G.
emzett GmbH

formerly TUFFI Campina

Defendant: Haupzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Question referred

Does the system of penalties laid down in the second sub-
paragraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
536/93 of 9 March 1993 (1) as amended by Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (2), contravene the
principle of proportionality in cases where the time-limit is
exceeded only marginally and, moreover, without appreciable
effect?

2. If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, is
the rule established by Art. 30 (4) of Directive 93/37/EEC or
the similar rule contained in Art. 55 (1) and (2) of Directive
2004/18/EC (in cases where that is the relevant provision),
according to which, if tenders appear to be abnormally low
in relation to the works, the contracting authority shall,
before it may reject those tenders, request, in writing, details
of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers
relevant and shall verify those constituent elements taking
account of the explanations received, while not presenting
the characteristics of a fundamental principle of Community
law, nevertheless an implied consequence of or a principle
deriving from the principle of competition, considered in
conjunction with the principles of administrative transpar-
ency and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and
is it therefore, as such, directly binding, taking precedence
over possibly incompatible national provisions adopted by
the Member States to regulate public works contracts to
which Community law is not directly applicable?

(1) OJ 1993 L 57, p.22.
(2) OJ 1998 L 142, p. 22.

(1) OJ L 199, p. 54.
(2) OJ L 134, p. 114.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato, Quinta Sezione lodged on 20 March 2006 —
Santorso Soc. coop. arl v Comune di Torino

(Case C-148/06)

(2006/C 154/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven lodged on 23 March 2006
— Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Econo-
mische Zaken

(Case C-158/06)

(2006/C 154/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Santorso Soc. coop. arl

Defendant: Comune di Torino and Others

Question(s) referred

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stichting ROM-projecten

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

1. Does the rule laid down in Article 30(4) of Directive
93/37/EEC (1) or the similar rule contained in Art. 55 (1)
and (2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (2) (in cases where that is
the relevant provision), that, where tenders appear to be
abnormally low in relation to the works, the contracting
authority shall, before it may reject those tenders, request,
in writing, details of the constituent elements of the tender
which it considers relevant and shall verify those constituent
elements taking account of the explanations received, consti-
tute a fundamental principle of Community law?

Questions referred

1. Is Article 6 of the Commission Decision of 16 October
1995 concerning a
contribution from the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European
Social Fund (ESF) for an operational programme within the
framework of the SME Community initiative for the benefit
of areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 in the Netherlands
(C(95) 1753) unconditional and sufficiently clear and
precise to be directly applicable in the national legal order?